The court ruled that the amount shown on the check will not be the “legally enforceable claim” under Section 138 of the NI Act if the check is presented in cash without confirming partial payment. Under section 56 of the Act, prior payments must be noted on the cheque, and if such a cheque is noted, the cheque may be presented for the balance. Thus, the court stated that under section 138 of the NI Act, the offense is attracted if such a check is withdrawn with the approval of partial payment. Subsequently, in the case of Queen Empress v. Amba Prasad (1897), on the meaning of “discontent” and opposition to “disapproval”, the Bombay High Court repeated the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court of Calcutta as follows: Note 2. – Comments expressing disapproval of the measures taken by the Government to obtain their amendment by legal means, without arousing hatred or attempting to arouse it, contempt or dissatisfaction do not constitute a criminal offence within the meaning of this Article. Search the dictionary for legal abbreviations and acronyms for legal acronyms and/or abbreviations that contain dissatisfaction. To enter into the protection of the statement, a letter must not only be the formulation of comments on government actions with the intention of provoking only disapproval of them as opposed to dissatisfaction with the government, but the disapproval must be “compatible” with a desire to obey the legitimate authority of the government and the legitimate authority of the government against illegal attempts to undermine or oppose that power. “Declaration 1. – The term “dissatisfaction” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. “When a person uses spoken or written words for the purpose of creating a disposition in the minds of the persons to whom they are addressing, of disobeying the lawful authority of the government or of undermining or opposing that authority if the opportunity arises, and if he does so with the intention of: To create such a disposition among their listeners or readers, He will be guilty of the offense of having tried to arouse dissatisfaction within the meaning of the section, although no disturbance is caused by his words or any feeling of dissatisfaction actually caused by them. For the purposes of the article, it is sufficient that the words used serve to arouse feelings of ill will against the government and to resist hatred and contempt of the people, and that they were used with the intention of creating such a feeling. So, the second question that will be put to you, gentlemen of the jury, will be whether, on the basis of the evidence at your disposal, you believe that the articles disseminated by the prisoners were intended to create such feelings in the minds of their readers and, if so, whether they intended to create such a feeling through their circulation.
“1. A cheque that is not cashed shall constitute a legally enforceable debt on the due date or on submission for the commission of a crime under section 138 of the NI Act. The court found that the defendant made partial payments after the debt arose and before the cheque was presented for redemption. In addition, the sum of 20 lakhs in rupees represented on the cheque was not the legally enforceable debt on the due date. Therefore, the defendant cannot be presumed to have committed a crime under section 138 of the Act. What does “disapproval” of government actions mean as opposed to “dissatisfaction” with the government? I agree with Sir Comer Petheram that if dissatisfaction means lack of affection or enmity, disapproval simply means disapproval; and that it is quite possible to love or be loyal to anyone, be it an individual or a government, and at the same time strongly disapprove of one`s actions. This distinction is the essence of the article. It clearly shows what a speaker or writer can and cannot do. A man may criticize or comment on any government measure or action, whether legislative or executive, and freely express his opinion on it.
He may discuss the Income Tax Act, the Epidemic Diseases Act or any military expedition or the suppression of plague or famine or the administration of justice. It can express the strongest condemnation of such measures, and it can do so strictly and even unreasonably, perversely and unjustly. As long as it is limited to this, it will be protected by the declaration. But if it goes beyond that and, whether or not by commenting on the measures, the government itself endures the hatred or contempt of its readers – such as attributing to it all kinds of evils and misfortunes that the people have suffered, or treating its foreign origin and character negatively, or attributing vile motives to it or accusing it of hostility or indifference to the well-being of the people – then it is guilty of under the article, and the declaration will not save him. Law and judicial procedures may not be the main drivers of anti-political sentiment, but it would be wrong to say that they do not contribute to it. This article provides a first theoretical basis on how the law can affect democratic discontent. First, the paper examines what democratic discontent is and why the law has been marginalized in the study of dissatisfaction. Next, different relationships between the law and democratic discontent are analyzed: (1) the law and the courts that contribute to dissatisfaction; (2) laws and courts that combat dissatisfaction; and (3) the law and the courts that do both. The paper explores the idea of “democratic distancing” in law and focuses on the following: the expansion of the political decision-making power of the courts, the implementation and expansion of written constitutions and bills of rights, the proliferation of regional and supranational courts, and the lack of citizen participation in the burgeoning constitutional jurisdiction. Any person who arouses or attempts to arouse feelings of dissatisfaction with the government established by law in British India by words to be spoken or read, or by signs, by visible or other representation, shall be punished by life imprisonment or imprisonment to which a fine may be added, or by imprisonment for a term of three years, can be added to the fine, or with a fine. On November 14, 2022, the Supreme Court, composed of Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Ajay Rastogi, filed and listed a number of cases against the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The Court was also referred back to the Union of India to file its reply by 31 October 2022. Thus, the petition against the law was filed because it prohibits remedial measures against unlawful attacks on places of worship and pilgrimages before August 15, 1947. According to Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights lawyer, the strongest incitement to discontent in the 1987 election campaign was made by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who said that the leaders of the armed forces should consider resigning in protest if labour was elected and tried to implement its non-nuclear policy.  A reading of the provision makes it clear that it distinguishes between exciting feelings of “dissatisfaction” on the one hand and “disapproval” of the government`s actions on the other. According to the Calcutta Supreme Court in 1891, the former referred to a challenge to the legitimate authority of the government, while the latter referred to disapproval of the government`s actions without calling for disobedience to the authority of the government. Therefore, words, written or spoken, or signs or any form of visible representation that were intended to elicit feelings of dissatisfaction with the government that were different from mere disapproval or disapproval of the government`s actions, attracted determination. The mere intention to create dissatisfaction, as deciphered from written or spoken speech or visible representation, was sufficient without this intention having to be realized. Here are the relevant excerpts from the judgment: At best, the law and legal processes contain the ability not only to complete the sharpness of politics, but to elevate it to a higher level, where independent thinking can lead to valuable and extremely useful revelations. Such knowledge can help find solutions to persistent or highly developed societal problems, ensure equality before the law, or maintain the structures of democratic government. Unfortunately, the law is not always at its best. Sometimes the law can harm and undermine politics by condemning the political sphere or its agents, squandering opportunities for dignified politics, and belittling people who make difficult and sometimes bad decisions.
These condemnations can contribute to an unhealthy view of the political sphere that often highlights and accentuates its failure. Undoubtedly, a lot of work has been devoted to the law at its best, but its disadvantages must also be recognized.