From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: A day ahead of the Supreme Court’s final hearing on the sedition law, the Centre on Monday asked it to hold back since it has decided to re-examine and reconsider its provisions and not rush with any ruling.
It filed an application, requesting the Supreme Court not to hold hearing of the case to decide the constitutionality of Section 124A till the government finishes its reconsideration process.
The Union government’s application comes a day before 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.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 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 S G 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 N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, meanwhile, 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. “Your lordships know what is happening in the country. Yesterday, somebody was detained under this Section just because they wanted to chant ‘Hanuman Chalisa’. So guidelines have to be there, to prevent misuse. Referring the Kedar Nath verdict to a larger bench is not necessary. It is a well-considered judgment,” Venugopal said.
A law, which is fair on its face, will not become invalid and unconstitutional due to the abuse and implementation in violation of fundamental rights. In that case, the individual matters will have to be decided, Venugopal said. The bench commenced the hearing and heard arguments on a batch of pleas against the sedition law for some time before adjourning it to May 10.
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 judgement of the five-judge bench in the light of subsequent developments in the fundamental rights jurisprudence.
The bench, on April 27, had directed the Union government to file a reply saying it would commence the final hearing in the matter on May 5 and would not entertain any request for adjournment. Concerned over the enormous misuse of the penal law on sedition, the top court in July last year had asked the Union government why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.
