Talk:Indian Penal Code

message: Personally, I think the sections refering to cruelty should be moved to their own page, but am leaving it there, since it maybe a emotional issue.--IMpbt 15:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections refering to cruelty 

message: Section 498A is just one section IPC (Indian Penal Code)....
There is only one section within IPC in Wiki, is due to the fact that there is no other discussion going on for other sections.
Anybody can add other sections or entire IPC, if they find it worth while.
So.. please do not move it to a different page..498A is part of Indian Penal Code.
forgot about the emotional part... please refer to "Misuse of 498A" section within (it is ofcourse diff wiki page).
-498aVictim Aug 20 2005
Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism - IPC 498A 
You can Control TERRORISM; But you cann`t control or STOP Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism 
IPC - 498A. 
Government can make LAW to STOP terrorism, and punish Terrorist and misusers; But who will punish Government bodies who make laws like IPC 498A, which harass more innocent than save.Which send more old aged parents to jail falsely, Even Pregnent sisters of man who is victim of ipc 498a along with breast fed children. 
Supreme Court of India called, misusing 498a is a legal terrorism; still no one ready to scrap this Notorious Law nor amend it; Even they know there are more innocents are victimised. 
Government knows there is mass scale of misuse; but they do not punish misuser; Law think all wives are Victims of Domestic violence. 
When there is so much support for this misuse; 
and government blindly watch this and do nothing; 
then this is Government Sponsored Terrorism than what Else. 
Indian Penal code 498A Misuse
This is not the forum for this discussion. Please take it up with your MP (I don't know that India calls its MPs MPs but I'll run with that anyway), or start a protest group in your State. Wikipedia is not your, or my, soapbox (I forgot what the article name of that is, I'm sure you can look it up in the search function). Ellenor2000 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is indeed emotional 

message: I don't know what "Specialty" is referred to but that whole segment sounds like cheerleading in favour of the Penal Code without any mention of drawbacks or any such tempering language. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article definately needs improvement; the drafting of the code has been attended to in an haphazard manner; also the write up is not very informative. The quoted reference is also no an site run by the government or creditable source. Definitely needs a re write in encyclopedia style as it is written like a piece of literature --Aileronajay 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Improvement 

message: This article has enormous potential for being encyclopedic yet is very poorly written (by this I do not refer to poor grammar but rather to poor "encyclopedic style") and it is missing many citations. Frankly at this stage it is litte better than a stub article. As already noted on this talk page there is a lot of bias without balance in the text. I would suggest this could be a fantastic article if it were treated as an encyclopedic entry should be. If not it should be deleted for lack of Verifiability and Reliable Sources.  66.102.204.126 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs either Major Cleanup or Deletion 

message: The paragraph on Section 309 - punishing the unsuccessful attempt to suicide - blames "colonial society where people did not have rights of their own." Actually it mirrors an English law which was repealed in England by the Suicide Act 1961. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reforms section error

message: The phrase "principally the work of a man who had hardly held a brief, and whose time was devoted to politics and literature" is plaigarised from the preface to an edition of the Code written by W. R. Hamilton.  Please revise or cite.  here is the google book link 
http://books.google.com/books?id=LQ0bAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR15&dq=indian+penal+code+macaulay&hl=en&ei=Pd5MTMvTM8GC8gbK6v04&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=indian%20penal%20code%20macaulay&f=false
it is on page XIX
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.137.119 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism  

message: I randomly got the Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code article as part of this month's Wikification drive.  I noticed that it has very little content, and what it does have would be fairly simple to merge into this major article.  Same goes for most of the other Sections so categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricValkyrie (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of Section 6 (and other sections in the Code) 

message: Did the English actually abolish local traditional law when they introduced the IPC or didn't they? Could the courts, specifically the lower courts, choose to disregard the IPC? If so, did this ever change? 94.211.48.74 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and local law 

message: Numerous sections in this article, but notably not the intro, contain hasty and otherwise unencyclopedic grammar. Exempli gratia: Various sections of the Indian Penal Code are controversial. They are challenged in courts claiming as against the Constitution of India. Also there is demand for abolition of some controversial IPC sections completely or partially. This is being reworded, but I'm not sure if there is not some better wording that could be used. Ellenor2000 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual grammatical traditions - these are being rewritten in a series of edits but given that I'm not from South Asia, I'm not sure if all of these corrections are valid.