The Supreme Court on Tuesday has agreed with the Centre's suggestion to defer the hearing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code till it reconsiders the provision, reported legal news portal LiveLaw.
The top court also asked the government to reply by tomorrow on whether the sedition law can be paused and people charged under it can be protected while the colonial-era law is being reviewed, expressing concern about those already facing sedition charges.
"We will give you time till tomorrow morning to take instructions from the government. Our concern is pending cases and future cases, how the government will take care of those till it re-examines the law," Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.
"In order to protect the interest of people who are already booked under the sedition law as well as future cases, Centre to file response on whether those can be kept in abeyance till law is re-examined," the Chief Justice directed.
Earlier, the court asked the government tough questions on its request for more time in order to review the law.
"The state says they are reexamining. But we cannot be unreasonable. We will have to decide how much time has to be given," Chief Justice Ramana said.
"Can someone stay in jail for months? Your affidavit says civil liberties. How will you protect those liberties," the Chief Justice questioned.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, said, “It is their entitlement and privilege to change the law but we have challenged the current law. It is the jurisdiction of the executive to make a decision and the jurisdiction of the legislature to make laws. But it is for this court to consider.”
He added, "My suggestion is that even if they change the law, there are pending prosecutions and arrests. They have to be decided on the current law.”
On Monday, two days after firmly defending the sedition law and asking the Supreme Court to dismiss challenges to it, the government said it had decided to review the legislation.
It said it has decided to "re-examine and re-consider" the sedition law by an "appropriate forum", in a change of stance just two days after stoutly defending the colonial era penal law, and also urged the Supreme Court not to "invest time" in examining the validity of its provisions once again.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870.
The then British government in India feared that Muslim preachers on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the government. Particularly after the successful suppression of Wahabi/Waliullah Movement by the British, the need was felt for such law.
Throughout the Raj, this section was used to suppress activists in favour of national independence, including Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.
The section kept drawing criticism in the independent India as well for being a hindrance to the right to free speech. Sedition was made a cognizable offence for the first time in history in India during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1973, that is, arrest without a warrant was now permissible.
In 1962 the Supreme Court of India interpreted the section to apply only if there is, say, "incitement to violence" or "overthrowing a democratically elected government through violent means".
In post-independence India, Section 124A came under criticism at numerous intervals, being singled out for its curbing of free speech. When the First Amendment of the Constitution of India was passed in 1951, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposed to "get rid of it [Section 124A]" as written, and favoured handling sedition-related by other means.
Several opinion-makers have called for the abolishing of sedition laws in the context of the 2016 protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. In 2018, the Law Commission of India published a consultation paper that asked for a possible amendment or repeal of the law.
Critics of the law claim that sedition is an outdated law from the colonial era and it curtails the freedom of speech and that it has no place in a modern democracy. Critics further point out that the law was introduced by the colonial government in India to curtail dissent and that Britain has since abolished this law in 2009.
