Frozen Sedition: The Hindu Editorial on Supreme Court freezes sedition law

A big blow in favor of free speech, The Supreme Court has effectively suspended the operation of the sedition provision in the penal law of the country. “In respect of all pending trials, appeals and proceedings under the charge” Section 124A It should be kept in abeyance”, it said in an order that would bring some welcome relief to those calling for the repeal of Section 124A of the IPC, which criminalises any speech, writing or representation which “is a matter of concern to the Government”. incites dissatisfaction against”. refrain from taking punitive measures.The hope and expectation arise from the self-dedication of the Central Government that it has re-examination decision and reconsider as part of the provision Prime Minister’s efforts to abolish old laws and compliance burden. Perhaps, realizing that its order may not be enough to deter thin-handed and vindictive governments and politically determined police officers from being enforced against opponents and dissidents, the court urged people to approach jurisdictional courts. If any new case is registered for sedition and to cite the stand of the Central Government along with the present order in their support.

That the sedition law continues to be misused has been recognized years ago, and courts have pointed out that police officers are not paying heed. Limit imposed by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of 1962 Who commits treason? The Court had upheld this section by simply reading it, to mean that it applies only to “acts with intent or tendency to cause disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”. In practice, the police are using a broader definition of sedition, which has also criticized the government in harsh and harsh language. The question before the court now is whether it should set aside the decision given by a five-judge bench 60 years ago. If it chooses to do so, and scrapping Section 124A as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression, it could help in the larger cause of preventing misuse of provisions relating to speech-based offences. However, the government may choose to prevent this by amending such conditions so as to define the offense to cover only those acts which affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State, as determined by a panel of experts. reportedly recommended. When the government submitted that it was reconsidering the provision on its own, it was expecting only an indefinite adjournment of the hearing on the constitutional validity of section 124A, but now it should heed the spirit of the order and its Effective steps should be taken to prevent misuse. ,