New Delhi, May 11 (PTI): In a landmark order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold the contentious sedition law till the Centre completes its promised review of the colonial relic and also asked the central and state governments not to register any fresh cases invoking the offence.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana directed that ongoing probes, pending trials and all proceedings under the sedition law across the country will also be kept in abeyance. Those in jail on sedition charges could approach the court for bail, it said while speaking on the need to balance the interests of civil liberties and citizens with that of the State.
This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise.
The offence of sedition, which was included in Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1890, has been under intense public scrutiny for its use as a tool against expressions of dissent, including on social media.
The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused, the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said in its interim order.
Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the rigours of Section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu and permitted reconsideration of the provision. “We expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments.”
Any affected party is at liberty to approach concerned courts, which are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into the consideration the present order, the apex court said.
The order said the interim stay granted to some petitioners by the apex court would continue to operate till further orders. It also listed the pleas for further hearing in the third week of July, and said its directions shall continue till further orders.
If any fresh case is registered, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the courts for appropriate relief and the courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Centre, it said.
The court did not agree with the Centre’s suggestion that a superintendent of police ranked officer be made responsible for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition.
The Editors Guild of India welcomes court order
The Guild welcomes this interim order as sedition law has been used far too often by central and state governments against journalists in an effort to curb independent reporting, it said in a statement.
The Guild was one of the petitioners who had challenged the sedition law, saying that it causes a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.
While the Opposition hailed the decision, saying the voice of truth can no longer be suppressed, the Centre invoked the “Lakshman Rekha” to assert that none of the institutions should cross the “boundary”.
The ruling BJP on its part said the order must be viewed in the context of the overall positive suggestion of the government that it wishes to examine the matter which has been “duly accepted” by the court.
The offence of sedition provides for life term as maximum penalty for creating “disaffection towards the government”.
Over the years, the number of sedition cases has been on the rise, with Maharashtra politician couple Navneet and Ravi Rana, author Arundhati Roy, student activist Umar Khalid and journalist Siddique Kappan among those charged under the provision.
Between 2015 and 2020, 356 cases of sedition — as defined under Section 124 A of the IPC –were registered and 548 persons arrested, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period.
