S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India (2022)

S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India (2022)

FACTS OF THE CASE 

S.G. Vombatkere, a retired Army General filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of India along with a number of petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860). Several Section 124A talks about the law of Sedition which dates back to 1898. It criminalizes any spoken or visual representation that brings hatred or contempt or incites disaffection towards the Government in force in the country at the time. It incorporates a punishment of imprisonment for life with or without fine or the offender can be punished with an imprisonment of 3 years with or without fine. In the said case, the petitioners disputed that the law of sedition is used to suppress dissent and it violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution as it curtails the legitimate criticism of the government and thereby damages the spirit of democracy. It was also claimed that the provision being vague gives excessive powers to the state and hence is often misused.

The case was first heard in July 2021 by a two judges bench consisting of Justice U.U. Lalit and Ajay Rastogi. The petitioner was asked to give out a copy of the Writ Petition to the Attorney General of India. The further date of hearing was fixed to October 2021. In April 2022, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Central Government urging it to file a response to aforesaid petition. The Solicitor General of India asked the court for more time in regard to filing the counter-affidavit which was provided by the court. On 7^th May, a written submission was filed on behalf of the Union of India by Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India. While an Affidavit on behalf of the Government was filed on 9^th May, the court pronounced its judgement on 11^th May 2022. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Is Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – the law of sedition violative of freedom of speech and expression provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• Is the law of sedition being a colonial era provision outdated and does not conform with the modern principles.
• Is the law of sedition open to misuse by the authorities giving them arbitrary powers to stifle dissent and curtail criticism of the government.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER 

• The law of sedition violates the fundamental right of free speech and expression by restricting even legitimate condemnation of the government by individuals. 
• Section 124A is a vast provision and uses ambiguous language giving room to the authorities to misuse it and curtail people from expressing their genuine views about the government set up by law.
• It was claimed that the law is a colonial era provision which was borrowed by the Britishers (UK). And it does not conform with the modern The law was used to suppress revolutionary movements at the time. And it does not conform with the modern democratic principles and is a serious threat to the structure of democracy. 
• The law of sedition must be struck down as it violates the fundamental rights of citizens giving arbitrary powers to the Centre regarding any dissent of the prevailing government. 
• Article 124A restricts free speech in the name of Sovereignty and integrity of India and other reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution but it is grossly misused and often the restrictions imposed do not conform with reasonable restrictions. 

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT 

• Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Union of India that the law of sedition is essential in maintaining security and sovereignty of the nation as well as the public order. And it is in conformity with democracy.
• The law is required in order to protect the nation’s integrity and cease any activity that excites disaffection against the government or threatens the authority of governance.
• The law of sedition is envisaged in the constitution with a view to pose reasonable restriction (provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution) on the freedom of speech and expression
• Respondent also contended that the Government is conscious of the possible misuse of the law which is not intended. It tends to take away the liberty of speech.
• The Government hence, recognizes civil liberties of the citizens and human rights. Therefore it would examine the provisions of Section 124A. 

JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED

The Supreme Court of India took into consideration the contentions by the petitioners and the counter affidavit presented by the Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India. It studied the facts of the case carefully and said that it is clear that the Government of India recognizes the unintended misuse of the law of Sedition stated by the petitioners and has rightly vouched to reconsider the provisions of Section 124A. Hence, the court on 11^th May 2022, in its judgement to the case out the law of sedition in abeyance until further notice. The court further mentioned that it expects the Government to not file any sedition cases while the law is under scrutiny. And if a new case is filed then the parties are free to approach the court.  All the pending cases (any appeal, trial or proceedings) 

The court in its judgement takes into account that the law of sedition is widely misused and in many cases infringes the right of free speech and expression by restraining healthy criticism against the government or by stifling dissent. It gives coercive powers to the government to impose the law over unreasonable matters. Such a misuse of provision is contradicting the democratic and liberal principles of the nation. The court mentioned that there is a dire need to analyze the constitutional validity of Section 124A and introduce reforms for it to be in line with democracy. The court noted that the right to dissent and criticise is a necessary aspect of democracy and the restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech and expression must meet the criteria of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court observed that it takes into account the need for safeguarding the integrity and security of the nation but it also recognizes the right of free speech and expression, civil liberty of the citizens as well as the values of democracy. And it is not an easy task to strike the balance between the two. But the age-old law of sedition which dates back to the colonial era needs to be  reviewed and rectified in a manner that it conforms with the ideas and concepts of democracy. The decision of the Supreme Court is appreciated by the petitioners, citizens and human rights organizations. It is a significant advancement in the protection of fundamental rights and safeguarding the basic principles of democracy. 

CONCLUSION

In recent times, the law of sedition has become a consistent matter of debate. There have been controversies relating to Section 124A with various cases coming up in recent times. Which also led to filing of various petitions regarding the misuse of the section by the authorities. Section 124A of Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1980) states that – “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or, excites or attempts to excite disaffection, towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine maybe added, or with fine.” It basically criminalizes any act or statement that can incite a mutiny or discontent towards the Government which is established by law. The law of sedition was originally drafted by Thomas Macaulay in 1837 but it was further omitted with the introduction of Indian Penal Code in 1860. In 1870 it was brought through an amendment and incorporated in IPC under section 124A. 

The Law of Sedition was repealed in the UK in 1967, the country where it originated. This has also been a ground of argument amongst those opposing the law and urging for its repeal in India as well. The prevalent and persistent misuse of the law of sedition to suppress the free speech and criticism of the government cannot be ignored. But there is surely a need to protect the nation’s integrity and security from any incitement of use of violent means to overthrow the government. The law undoubtedly has lost its initial and real purpose considering its undesired misuse that leads to infringement of people’s fundamental rights. And hence, there’s an urgent need to take a good look and analyze the law and the Centre to come up with a reform or a way that the law could be put to its original use rather than damaging the democracy of the nation and liberty of the individuals.

The judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court of India in the case S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India plays a vital role in safeguarding the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens as well as protects the core values of Indian democracy. It is indeed a significant advancement in advocating a strong legal system which provides protection to the fundamental rights of the individuals. The Government is hoped to bring necessary ameliorations in the current provisions of the law of sedition to bring a much needed balance between protecting the nation’s integrity and the individuals’ right to free speech and expression.

REFERENCES –

https://indiankanoon.org/

written by Jagriti Dwivedi of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Admin