Pinnacle court asked union that sedition cases be kept inactive

10-05-2022

Seeks government's reply on protecting citizens from sedition cases till it re-examines law

As the Centre wanted to re-examine the law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to spell out if all sedition cases filed across India may well be kept suspended till the review of Section 124A of the IPC was completed.

A Bench led by CJI NV Ramana -- which agreed to the Centre's proposal to reconsider the colonial law on sedition -- asked the Centre to reply on Wednesday when the matter are going to be preoccupied again. the highest court -- which was considering if petitions challenging the validity of sedition law should be named a seven-judge Bench -- wanted to grasp about the pending and future sedition cases.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that the govt was reconsidering the desirability of Section 124A. He however, refused to provide a precise timeframe to finish the exercise.

On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the court's exercise of examining the validity of a law cannot be stopped merely because the legislature will take time to reconsider it.

Maintaining that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been cognizant of varied views expressed on sedition law, the Centre had on Monday told the Supreme Court that it's decided to “re-examine and re-consider” the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian legal code.

“The Government of India, being fully cognizant of varied views being expressed on the topic of sedition and also having considered the concerns of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to take care of and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian legal code which may only be done before the competent forum,” the Centre said in an affidavit filed within the top court.

The affidavit urged the Supreme Court to not invest time in examining the validity of Section 124A – which was upheld by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh’s case in 1962 -- all over again and await the end result of its reconsideration by the govt.

“The Hon’ble PM believes that at a time when our nation is marking ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ (75 years since Independence), we need to, as a nation, work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which has outdated colonial laws and practices. in this spirit, the govt. of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated laws since 2014-15. it's also ended over 25,000 compliance burdens which were causing unnecessary hurdles to people of our country. Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people are decriminalised,” the affidavit read.

Terming it “an ongoing process”, the Centre said, “These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mindset and thus haven't any place in today’s India.”

The affidavit said, “The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has been cognizant of assorted views expressed on the topic and has also periodically, on various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving assuming to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country. He has repeatedly said that one among India’s strengths is that the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in our country.”

The Centre sought to spotlight the very fact that there have been divergent views expressed publically by various jurists, academicians, intellectuals and citizens normally. “While they agree about the requirement for statutory provisions to cope with serious offences of significant nature affecting the very sovereignty and integrity of the country, acts resulting in destabilising the govt established by law by means not authorised by law or prohibited by law, requiring a penal provision for such purposes is usually accepted by everyone in legitimate State interest. However, concerns are raised about its application and abuse for the aim not intended by law,” it noted.