NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the “enormous misuse” of the colonial-era sedition law and asked Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to “silence” people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.
The top court agreed to examine pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC.
The opposition parties welcomed the top court’s observations and hoped that the Centre would do away with the law that is used to silence the critics of the government.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said its main concern was the “misuse of law” and issued notice to the Centre.
“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?” asked the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.
The bench wondered at the continuance of the sedition law in statute book for last 75 years and said: “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision.
Your government has been getting rid of stale laws.” The top court said that it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and “there is no accountability”.
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 lay down guidelines to curb the misuse.
The non-bailable provision under sedition law 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.
Observing that the provision on sedition has been put to “enormous misuse”, the Supreme Court bench also referred to alarming misuse of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back and observed: “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.
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 a call on posting of the matters and notify the date of hearing.
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 also hearing a 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”.
“The petitioner contends that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc.
is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech,” the plea said.
The petition said there is need to take into account the “march of the times and the development of the law” before dealing with Section 124-A.
Earlier, a separate bench had sought response from the Centre on the plea challenging validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists — Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla — working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.
Opposition leaders, activists laud SC’s observations on sedition lawSeveral opposition leaders and civil society activists hailed the Supreme Court for asking the Centre whether the sedition law was still needed 75 years after Independence and expressed the hope that it would be “thrown out”.
Reacting to the Supreme Court terming the sedition law colonial and asking whether it was still needed 75 years after Independence, former Congress chief Rahul Gandhi said, “We welcome this observation by the Supreme Court.” Some leaders, including Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and Swaraj India president Yogendra Yadav, pointed out that about 100 farmers in Haryana were charged with sedition, among other charges, in connection with an attack on the state deputy speaker’s car during a farmers’ protest.
Moitra said she was finally hoping “this archaic law misused by GoI will be thrown out”.
Former law minister Ashwani Kumar did not directly comment on the Supreme Court’s observation but tweeted that the sedition charge against Haryana farmers is an insult to India’s democratic traditions.
“Government should withdraw the charges immediately and unconditionally,” he said.
Activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan said, “Kudos to the SC & the CJI for standing up to the Govt on the gross misuse of this colonial law of sedition to silence dissent.” According to Congress leader Jaiveer Shergill, the British used the sedition law to silence Mahatma Gandhi and the BJP is “using it to kill principles of transparency and accountability espoused by Mahatma Gandhi”.
In a tweet, he said, “28% rise per year in registration of sedition cases since 2014 — well thought strategy to kill freedom of speech!” Actor and Shiv Sena leader Urmila Matondkar said, “‘Do we still need it after 75 years of Independence?’ Honorable #SupremeCourt has referred to #Sedition law as ‘Colonial’.” Filmmaker and former MP Pritish Nandy also reacted to the Supreme Court asking the Centre whether the sedition law was needed and said, “Good point, Supreme Court.
Gone hoarse saying this.” He added that we want to remove all traces of British rule but won’t give up this terrible law under which our freedom fighters were jailed.
The Supreme Court expressed concern for the ‘abuse’ of incitement law; The opposition party welcomes the highest observation
