Supreme Court. file | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
On 1 May, the government told the Supreme Court that it had initiated the “process of re-examination” of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code and that consultations were in its “final stages”.
Read this also | A provisional relief, in pursuance of section 124A
Appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Attorney General R Venkataramani said the government is “very keen”.
He indicated that the exercise could be given a ‘final touch’ before the next session of Parliament.
The court recorded Mr Venkataramani’s submission that deliberations on the colonial-era law were at a “quite advanced stage”. It posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of August 2023.
In May last year, the Court, in an interim order, The use of section 124A was suspendedStaying of pending criminal cases and court proceedings under Section 124A across the country.
However, in October 2022, the petitioners moved the apex court alleging that the arrest and trial under Section 124A continued despite a stay.
On May 1, the central government had assured the court on October 31 last year that it was re-examining the colonial provision and “something might happen” in the then winter session of Parliament.
The Center had further told a division bench headed by then Chief Justice UU Lalit (retd) that no “offence”, as claimed by the petitioners, had come to its notice.
On 26 April, the counsel for the petitioners including senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, PB Suresh, Vipin Nair and Prasanna S urged the court to take up the matter and strike down the provision of section 124A.
Mr Raj said that the May 2022 order had only kept section 124A in abeyance, requiring the provision to be struck down immediately instead of taking a place on the statute book indefinitely.
For now, the court has deferred its decision on whether the matter should be referred to a five- or seven-judge constitution bench on the strength of the Attorney General’s submission.
A judicial decision on the question of striking down Section 124A may require an examination of the 1962 Constitution Bench judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case.
This six-decade-old judgment by a five-judge bench had upheld the validity of section 124A, though limited its applicability to “activities inciting violence or creating public disorder or disturbing public tranquillity”. .
However, the petitioners, who include senior journalists and prominent bodies and personalities, have argued that the provision has been grossly misused by the government to curtail the fundamental rights to life, dignity, personal liberty and freedom of protest and dissent. Has gone.
In an earlier hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that there has been a “sea-change” in the law since the 1962 judgement. Mr Sibal had pointed out how the right to protest and the right to dissent was stifled by the sedition law.
He had said that the court should look beyond the Kedarnath judgment and seek a judicial account of how the law of sedition was used by the state to nullify the right to life and equal treatment.