Supreme Court Chief Justice NV Ramana questions if the sedition law is still required after 75 years after independence.
Supreme Court asked if the sedition law, used to imprison Mahatma Gandhi during the freedom struggle against the British, was still needed, 75 years after independence. The CJI’s question to the Centre came during the hearing of two pleas challenging the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
“Dispute is that it is a colonial law and was used by British to suppress freedoms and used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence?” The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Central government as to whether the provision of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was still required after 75 years of independence (SG Vombatkere v. Union of India).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy also issued a notice in the plea filed by SG Vombatkere and tagged it with a similar pending petition filed by the Editors Guild of India.
AG Venugopal today pointed out that a similar challenge to the provision was already pending before another Bench of the apex court.
Appearing for Editors Guild of India today, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan contended, “It’s the same issue and a challenge on the statutory provision, and we demanded certain guidelines. We said how 124A, apart from being unconstitutional, is being grossly misused.”
CJI Ramana continued to pose some questions to the AG, including, “If you see history of charging under this section, the conviction rate is very low. Alarming numbers of misuse can be compared to a carpenter using a saw to cut a tree…but the entire forest.”
The CJI also mentioned the example of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, under which “thousands of cases” were being registered despite the fact that the provision was struck down.
In response, AG Venugopal said, “This Section need not be struck down and only guidelines can be set out so that it meets its legal purpose.”
The Court replied, “If some party doesn’t want to hear the voice of another party, they may use this type of law and implicate other people. It’s a serious question for individuals.”
Supreme Court bench led by CJI NV Ramana asserts that section 124A of the Indian Penal Code criminalises the offence of sedition as unconstitutional. This is because it outserved its purpose after the British left and the Central government is overusing it for tiny incidents to fulfil their political ends.
Section 124A has been misused unconstitutionally over the past few years in an attempt to muffle voices of dissent to the government and this certainly does not reflect the Constitution of India.