NEW DELHI: A day ahead of the Supreme Court's final hearing on the sedition law, the Centre on Monday asked the court to hold back as it has decided to “re-examine and reconsider” its provisions, and “not rush with any ruling”. The government filed an application, requesting the Supreme Court not to hold hearing in the case to decide the constitutionality of Section 124A till the it finishes its reconsideration process.
The Union government’s application came a day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments on the legal question of whether the pleas challenging the Colonial-era penal law on sedition should be referred to a larger bench. The Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), non-bailable provision, makes “any speech or expression that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.”
The top court is hearing pleas filed by the Editors Guild of India and former Major General SG Vombatkere, challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition) in the IPC. The apex court had said its main concern was the “misuse of law” leading to the rising number of cases.
While issuing notice on the petitions in July last year, the top court had referred to the alleged misuse of the provision and had asked if the Colonial-era law was still needed after 75 years of Independence.
In the last hearing, a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli was told by Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was assisting in his personal capacity, that the misuse of the provision as it happened against a Maharashtra MP for reciting Hanuman Chalisa has to be stopped by laying down guidelines. However, the top law officer said there was no need to refer the five-judge bench verdict of the top court in the Kedar Nath case in 1962 to a bench of five or seven judges.
A five-judge bench in the Kedar Nath Singh case in 1962 had upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse. It had held that unless accompanied by incitement or a call for violence, the criticism of the government cannot be construed as a seditious offence.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing as the lead counsel on behalf of the petitioners, said the reference to a larger bench may not be necessary. He said a three-judge bench can still go into the issue ignoring the 1962 judgment of the five-judge bench in the light of subsequent developments in the fundamental rights jurisprudence.
.png)
