×
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

SC to consider referring plea against sedition law to larger bench

The court sought written submissions from the Centre and petitioners and fixed the hearing on the question of reference for Tuesday, May 10
Last Updated 05 May 2022, 09:00 IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday decided to examine if pleas challenging the validity of sedition law, carrying life term as the maximum sentence, should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.

A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli agreed to consider the issue of reference, after noting that the previous judgement in the Kedar Nath Singh case (1962) upholding the validity of Section 124A of the IPC was delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench.

The court had then also read down the provision, saying "comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence” would not attract the penal offence.

On Thursday, the three-judge bench's decision to examine the question of reference to a constitutional bench came amid opposition by senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of those challenging the validity of the law and Attorney General K K Venugopal, who appeared as top law officer of the country.

The court sought written submissions from the Centre and petitioners and fixed the hearing on the question of reference for Tuesday, May 10.

The bench also gave Solicitor General Tushar Mehta the last chance to file a written response by Monday to the batch of petitions, pending for about one year.

In his submission, A-G Venugopal submitted that sedition law is valid, in view of the Kedar Nath Singh case judgement. The court can lay down guidelines to prevent its misuse. He also opposed the reference of the matter to a larger bench.

“Misuse of the law is controlled. The question of reference does not arise. Kedar Nath's judgment is very balanced in view of freedom of speech and security of the state,” he said.

“You’ve seen what’s happening in the country. Someone was detained as they wanted to recite Hanuman Chalisa, they’ve been released on bail. The single most important thing is what is permissible and what is not," he said, alluding to the case of MP Navneet Rana and her husband Ravi Rana.

The couple was arrested for threatening to protest outside Uddhav Thackeray’s private residence Matoshree by reciting Hanuman Chalisa. They were released on bail on Wednesday.

In his argument, Sibal said criticising the government can't be treated as creating disaffection. The provision falls foul of the restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed as a fundamental right, he said, adding many changes had taken place in decades since the Kedar Nath Singh judgement.

"Colonial masters are gone, we are masters of our own destiny. We are free and are no longer subjects of the Crown,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 05 May 2022, 06:30 IST)

Follow us on

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT