‘Bail for 124A, Sedition Law, be heard speedily,’ says the Center reassesses the law

*Paromita Das

The Supreme Court will rule on whether to adjourn the hearing of the sedition petitions or to continue hearing the case while the central government reassesses the law. The Supreme Court agreed to the Center’s proposal on Tuesday, allowing it to reexamine the law and giving it a day to respond to petitioners’ concerns. The bench is currently hearing several petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In their submissions against Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the petitioners sought a stay on all operations related to the law, including the filing of new FIRs in the matter.

The Center has been asked to respond on how it intends to handle cases that have already been filed under the law, as well as whether it is willing to direct state governments not to charge anyone with sedition until the reconsideration is completed.

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions from the Editors Guild of India and former Major-General SG Vombatkere challenging the constitutionality of the IPC’s sedition law. Other petitioners include former BJP union minister Arun Shourie, Manipur journalist Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, and Chhattisgarh journalist Kanhaiya Lal Shukla.

The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that incites or attempts to incite hatred or contempt for the government established by law in India, a criminal offense punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

In July of last year, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the widespread abuse of the penal law on sedition and asked the Center why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi in order to suppress the freedom movement.

The central government announced on Monday that it has decided to “re-examine and reconsider” the sedition law through an “appropriate forum,” reversing its position just two days after vehemently defending the colonial-era penal law.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs stated that while it was aware of various views and concerns about civil liberties, the Center was committed to protecting the “sovereignty and integrity of this great nation.”

The case is being heard by a bench consisting of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

 

The Center proposes that an FIR be registered only if a senior officer approves it.

Synchronously, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court, which is hearing the sedition law case, on Wednesday, May 11, that the Center has prepared a draught for the law’s reconsideration.

According to the draft, an FIR with sedition charges will be registered only if a police officer of the rank of SP says there is a valid reason for it.

Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Center was reviewing the sedition law.

“Where there is a cognizable offence, the Constitutional court staying the [probe] order is not appropriate,” Mehta argued. Allow a responsible senior officer to conduct an investigation under judicial supervision.

Speaking of the pending cases involving the use of sedition law, he stated: “This is a punishable offence. We don’t know the seriousness of each pending offence. Terrorism, money laundering, or any other crime could occur.”

What is sedition? Is it anti-national or anti-government?

“The cases are being handled by a judicial officer rather than the police. When a bail application is filed, the court can consider expediting the process. However, keeping the provision will not be appropriate “Mehta stated.
Responding to Kapil Sibal, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioner to seek directions on pending cases, Mehta stated that granting an interim order on a cognizable offense at the request of third parties in a PIL would set a bad precedent.

THE LAW OF SEDITION CASE

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the constitutionality of the sedition law, which has come under intense public scrutiny for alleged abuse by various governments to settle political scores.

The Supreme Court had asked the Center in July 2021 why it was not repealing the colonial-era law used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi.

“The British used this law to effectively silence Mahatma Gandhi. Do you believe this law is still needed?” N V Ramana, the Chief Justice of India, has inquired.

The court has stated that their primary concern is the misuse of the sedition law and the accountability of agencies that use it. “There is a serious risk of misapplication,” the Supreme Court stated.