Sedition law colonial, when will you repeal it? SC asks Centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 15) asked the Centre why it was not repealing the sedition law, and allowing the “enormous misuse of the colonial era” law used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress freedom movement.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana made the statement was admitting pleas filed by the Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC.
Stating that its main concern was the “misuse of law”, the apex court issued a notice to the Centre.
“The 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. Mr Attorney (General). We want to ask some questions. This is the colonial era law and the same law was used by the British to suppress freedom movement. It was used by British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Gokhale and others. Is it still necessary to keep this in statute even after 75 years of independence?” the bench also comprising justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked.
Stating that the law has been heavily misused, the Supreme Court also referred to the alarming misuse of section 66 A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back.
“It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut a wood, cut the entire forest. A factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people,” the CJI said, adding that if a particular party or people do not want to hear a voice, they will use this law to implicate others.
Wondering why the sedition law was still in use after 75 years of Independence, the bench said, “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws.”
The bench said that it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and there is no accountability.
In a hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said that if a police officer in a remote village wanted to fix a person then he can easily do so by using such provisions. Moreover, said the bench, there was very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases and these are the issues which are needed to be decided.
The CJI, on being told that another bench headed Justice U U Lalit has been hearing a similar plea which has been fixed for further consideration on July 27, said he would take call on posting of the matters and notify the date of hearing.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, who was asked to assist the bench in dealing with the case, defended the provision and said it be allowed to remain in the statute book and the court may laid down guidelines to curb the misuse.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Editors Guild of India, said that a separate plea has been filed by the journalists body challenging the validity of section 124A (sedition) of the IPC and that plea can also be tagged along with the present one. He said that besides challenging the validity, the Guild has also sought framing of guidelines to curb misuse.
The bench was hearing the fresh plea by former army officer, Major-General S G Vombatkere (Retd), challenging the Constitutional validity of section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC on grounds that it causes a “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.
The bench, referring to the credentials of Vombatkere, said that he gave his entire life to the country and his motive in filing of the case cannot be questioned. The former Army officer challenged the constitutional validity of the sedition law on the ground that it causes “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right. His plea said section 124-A is wholly unconstitutional and should be unequivocally and unambiguously struck down”.
(With inputs from agencies)