JOIN USSC rejects Centre’s petition against putting sedition law on hold
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Union government’s contention that a cognisable offence under Section 124A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be stopped from being registered.
Section 124A of IPC deals with the matter of sedition. Earlier in the day, the apex court had suspended the use of the draconian penal provision, until the Centre re-examines its provisions.
“The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused. The Attorney General had also, on an earlier date of hearing, given some instances of glaring misuse of this provision, like in the case of recital of the Hanuman Chalisa,” the Bench—consisting of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli—noted during the proceedings of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The Bench also noted that Attorney General K K Venugopal has earlier given some glaring instances of lodging the FIRs under the sedition, including the recent one about the arrest of Amravati MP Navneet Rana and her husband for intending to recite Hanuman Chalisa.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted a proposal on behalf of the Union government, contending that a cognisable offence under Section 124A can’t be prevented from being registered. Mehta argued there can only be scrutiny at senior police officer level, as per the mandate in the Vinod Dua case, depending on facts and situations. This would also be subject to judicial review, he said.
Regarding the pending cases under sedition charges, Mehta said those are already before a judicial forum, which should be allowed to examine the matter.
“We do not know the gravity of the offence of each case. No accused is before this case. Statute can't be stayed at third party's behest in a PIL,” Mehta submitted.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, including S G Vombatkere, said the proposal by the Centre is unacceptable to them.
Sibal said that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was struck down by the top court in the Shreya Singhal case for being unconstitutional, even though the power to lodge the case was entrusted with the SP level officer.
“It is because of (a) sea change, Section 124A has become unconstitutional. When the Kedar Nath Singh case from 1962 was decided by the top court's five-judge Constitution bench upholding its validity, it was a non-cognisable offence and made cognisable in year 1973 only,” Sibal argued.
On Tuesday, the court had asked the Centre to clarify within 24 hours if using the penal provision of sedition can be held in abeyance until the process of reviewing the law is over.
The Supreme Court had also sought to know what happens to the cases pending under the sedition law, as the government had asked the court to delay its judgment on the sedition law validity until the Centre re-examined and re-considered the provision.
On Monday, responding to the batch of petitions, the government had said it has decided to re-examine and reconsider the colonial-era sedition law in the spirit of 'Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav' (75 years of independence) and the Prime Minister's "unequivocal views" in favour of "protection of civil liberties".