Ready to re-examine, reconsider sedition law: Centre tells Supreme Court

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, May 9

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

“The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concerns of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain 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 Penal Code which can only be done before the competent forum,” the Centre said in an affidavit filed in the top court.

Filed on the eve of the crucial hearing before a three-judge Bench led by CJI NV Ramana to consider if petitions challenging the validity of sedition law should be referred to a seven-judge Bench, the three-page affidavit urged the Supreme Court not to invest time in examining the validity of Section 124A ndash; which was upheld by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh’s case in 1962 — once again and await the outcome of its reconsideration by the Government.

“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we need to, as a nation, work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which includes outdated colonial laws and practices. In that spirit, the Government of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated laws since 2014-15. It has 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 have been 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 have no place in today’s India.”

The affidavit said, “The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject 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 meaning to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country. He has repeatedly said that one of India’s strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in our country.”

The Centre sought to highlight the fact that there were divergent views expressed in public by various jurists, academicians, intellectuals and citizens in general.

“While they agree about the need for statutory provisions to deal with serious offences of serious nature affecting the very sovereignty and integrity of the country, acts leading to destabilising the government established by law by means not authorised by law or prohibited by law, requiring a penal provision for such purposes is generally accepted by everyone in legitimate State interest. However, concerns are raised about its application and abuse for the purpose not intended by law,” it noted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had on Saturday told the Supreme Court that a three-judge can’t reconsider the ratio of a Constitution Bench judgment without referring the matter to a larger Bench. Describing the Kedar Nath Singh verdict as “well-balanced”, Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier said, “It balanced free speech and national securityhellip; It does not call for reconsideration. The court needs to put in place certain guidelines… what’s permissible and what’s impermissible.”

A three-judge Bench led by CJI NV Ramana had on Thursday decided to examine if petitions challenging the validity of sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC needed to be referred to a seven-judge Bench as a five-judge Bench had upheld its constitutionality in Kedar Nath Singh’s case in 1962. It had asked the Centre to file their written submissions on the question of reference and posted the matter for hearing on May 10.

Section 124A says a person commits the crime of sedition, if he/she brings or attempts to bring in hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India. It can be by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise. It prescribes the maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

The law on sedition was not there in the original IPC, which came into force in 1862. It was added to the Code in 1870 and its ambit was expanded in 1898 with a view to crush the freedom movement. In July 2021, the CJI had asked the Attorney General to clarify if this law was still needed after 75 years of independence. The sedition law was used by the British against Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and was now being misused with no accountability from the government, he had noted. “The government has repealed a number of laws…I don’t know why you aren’t looking into it,” the CJI had asked.

The petitioners challenging the validity of Section 124A of IPC included Editors Guild of India and former Major General S G Vombatkere, former union minister Arun Shourie and journalists Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.