The Supreme Court was scheduled to listen to on 1 May 2023 a set of pleas, including one filed by the Editors Guild, challenging the validity of the colonial-era sedition law. The Centre is desired to apprise the court of the efforts taken so far with concern to inspecting the confrontational penal provision.
In the case, the Central government Monday notified the Supreme Court that the procedure to re-examine Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises sedition, is at a progressive or advanced stage.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala recorded the statements delivered in this reference by Centre’s top law officer, Attorney General R Venkataramani.
Consequently, the Bench designated the lawsuit for deliberation in the second week of August after the monsoon session of the parliament is concluded.
“Attorney General (AG) states that the government has initiated the process to re-examine 124A and consultations are at an advanced stage. In view of this statement and AG’s request, we keep this in second week of August,” the Court declared in its verdict.
The Apex Court on May 11, 2022 had mandated that the law be kept in suspension and requested the Central government and States to abstain from recording any matters for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court had also appealed to the governments not to begin again investigation or take coercive measures in all pending proceedings under the provision till the government’s action is accomplished.
Pursuant to the apex court’s May 2022 order, numerous individuals who were in prison as undertrial prisoners in seditions lawsuits, had been approved of bail by diverse courts.
While hearing of the case before the apex court, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, occurring on behalf of one of the petitioners, spoke out that the Court has to inspect whether this topic needs to be heard by a 7-judge bench since a 5-judge bench in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar had supported the provision in 1962. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also advocated that argument.
“Article 19 has to be recast in a new form and that is why this case should go before seven judges,” he declared.
Advocates PB Suresh and S Prasanna, also coming up for one of the petitioners, SG Vombatkare, disagreed with such consideration.
AG Venkataramani then enunciated that the government will talk with him before the process is carried on to the parliament.
“Before it goes to the parliament and It will be shown to me. Then why to take this up (now),” he raised a question.
The Court then consented to hold off the hearing and assigned the lawsuit for August.
Written by Sonakshi Misra, 2nd year (4th semester) B.A.LL.B. Hons. student at Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
0 Comments