Keeping Sedition Law on hold

Case Name: S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India Keeping Sedition Law on Hold

Former Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli are on the
bench.

"Section 124A of the IPC is out of date with today's social milieu and was designed for a
time when this country was under colonial rule."

Sedition is defined and punished in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The provision
was challenged because it restricts free speech and expression, and the country from which
the law was borrowed, the United Kingdom, repealed it.

The court served notice on the government, and the government responded by saying that it
has chosen to re-examine and reconsider the provision of Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code.

In the interest of justice, the Supreme Court issued the following Order :

State and central governments should avoid filing any FIRs under IPC Section 124A.

While the aforementioned provision of legislation is being considered, the investing agency
should not continue any inquiry or use any coercive actions by using Section 124A of the
IPC.

If a new case is filed under Section 124A of the IPC, the affected parties are free to
approach the appropriate Courts for appropriate remedy.

All pending trials, appeals, and processes concerning the charge be put in abeyance in
relation to the charge filed under Section 124A of the IPC.

The Supreme Court delayed outstanding criminal cases and court procedures under Section
124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, allowing the Union of India to rethink the British-
era provision.
"All pending trials, appeals, and proceedings relating to the charge framed under Section
124A of the IPC be stayed," a three-judge Bench chaired by Chief Justice of India N.V.
Ramana said. In court, it was asserted that around 13,000 persons were already imprisoned
under the sedition statute.
However, adjudication of other sections of law, if any, would proceed provided the court was
"of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused."

The court further stated that it "hopes and expects" the Centre and States to refrain from
registering FIRs, continuing investigations, or taking coercive actions under Section 124A
while the colonial law is being "reconsidered."
To protect civil liberties from any future misuse of Section 124A while it was under the
Union's scrutiny, the court ordered that those accused in new cases be free to approach
courts, which would consider their cases taking into account the Supreme Court's order and
the Union's "clear" stand that the provision was abused and needed "re-examination."
Meanwhile, the court granted the Union of India the authority to issue an order to states and
authorities to prevent further misuse of the sedition law.

The Bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, stated that the court's
rulings will be in effect until further orders were issued.
A strong message

The Supreme Court's decision would send a strong message to governments that utilise the
sedition legislation to suppress dissent and violate personal liberty. Undertrials arrested
under Section 124A can now seek bail using the order.
The sedition case has been scheduled for the third week of July by the court.

The judgement came after the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,
admitted that the statute was out of date. The administration had asked the court to
postpone hearings on several petitions challenging Section 124A until the government
completed its "reconsideration process" of the sedition provision."It is clear that the Union of
India agrees with the preliminary opinion expressed by this court that the rigours of Section
124A of the IPC are out of step with the current social milieu and were designed for a time
when this country was under colonial rule." In light of this, the Union of India may rethink the
statutory provision," the Supreme Court stated in its 10-page decision.

The Bench, however, did not set a date for the reconsideration process, recognising that it
could include parliamentary procedures.

A delicate balancing act

The temporary order issued by the court is clearly a balancing act. "On the one hand, this
court recognises the security interests and integrity of the state, and on the other, the civil
liberties of citizens." It is necessary to balance both sets of issues, which is a difficult task," it
stated.

The court recalled how the petitioners asserted that the provision was from 1898 and even
pre-dated the Constitution.
It also mentioned Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal's remarks about "glaring
instances of abuse of Section 124A,"

"As a result, we anticipate that it will be appropriate not to continue the use of the provision
by governments until the re-examination of the provision is completed," the court reasoned.
Mr. Mehta had argued in the morning, previous to the order's issuance, that Section 124A
constituted a cognisable offence and that the authorities could not be barred from filing
cases under the provision.

In order to prevent abuse, he had proposed that a senior official at the rank of
Superintendent of Police (SP) examine the facts of individual instances prior to the filing of
FIRs.
According to Mr. Mehta, there cannot be a blanket ban or freeze on the prosecution of
ongoing matters under Section 124A.

"We don't know the seriousness of the offences involved in these situations... Some may
even contain terrorist and money-laundering allegations, according to Mr. Mehta.
He stated that the accused in these outstanding instances could seek remedy from the
courts on their own. "There is no reason to be sceptical of the legal system," Mr. Mehta
added.
He stated that bail applications under Section 124A might also be heard quickly. The law
officer urged the court to issue an interim order along the lines proposed by the
administration until the sedition statute was re-considered.

Oppose the idea of the Centre.

For the petitioners, senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, as well as
advocates P.B. Suresh, Kaleeswaram Raj, and S. Prasanna, had opposed to the Centre's
plan.

Justice Kohli interjected to clarify that the court was "only speculating on what the situation
should be in the interim." Following that, the Bench retired to their chambers to deliberate
and prepare the order.
The court signalled on Tuesday that it was inclined to halt hearings until the administration
re-examined the law of sedition. The court, on the other hand, had asked for a detailed
answer by Wednesday on how it planned to defend the interests of persons who had already
been arrested and were facing prosecution under Section 124A.

The court had also asked the administration if the use of the British-era law may be
suspended in light of the reassessment process.
The Centre's affidavit on May 9 that it would re-examine Section 124A was inspired by Prime
Minister Narendra Modi's "belief" that the nation should work harder to shed "colonial
baggage," including outdated laws, while celebrating 75 years of Independence under the
banner of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav'.