Centre to Reconsider Sedition Law, Asks SC to Defer Hearing Challenges to S.124A

In an affidavit filed on 9 May, the Centre cites PM Modi's desire to rid India of unnecessary colonial baggage.

Centre says PM Modi wants to get rid of colonial baggage.

(Photo: PIB/IANS)

The Union Government on Monday, 9 May, has asked the Supreme Court of India to defer hearing the challenges to the constitutionality of the sedition law, as it has "decided to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code".

In an affidavit dated 9 May, the Centre says that there is a divergence of views in the public domain about sedition as a criminal offence, and that there is an acceptance that a penal provision is needed to deal with divisive acts affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India or to destabilise the government established by law.

"However, concerns are raised about its application and abuse for the purposes not intended by law," the affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, goes on to say.

It is submitted in the affidavit that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is cognizant of the controversy over sedition, believes that 75 years on from Independence, the nation needs to "work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which includes colonial laws and practices."

The Centre notes that since 2014-15, it has scrapped over 1,500 outdated laws, ended over 25,000 'compliance burdens' and that various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been de-criminalised, in an ongoing process.

"These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mindset and thus have no place in today's India," it says.

In these circumstances, the Centre says it is looking to review the law on sedition.

"The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concerns of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which can only be done before the competent forum."

Centre's affidavit dated 9 May

As a result of this position, the Modi government has suggested that the apex court should "not invest time" in examining the validity of Section 124A, which had been upheld by the court in 1962, once again, "and be pleased to await the exercise of reconsideration to be undertaken by the Government of India before an appropriate forum where such reconsideration is constitutionally permitted."

The suggestion will now need to be considered by the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, who are scheduled on Tuesday, 10 May, to hear arguments about whether the challenges to the sedition law need to be heard by a larger bench.

The Case Before the Supreme Court

The affidavit has been filed by the Centre in response to the petitions being heard by the court which argue that the offence of sedition in the IPC is unconstitutional.

The top court is hearing a batch of petitions – including pleas by retired Army Major General SG Vombatkere, the Editors Guild of India, and former Union Minister Arun Shourie – which have said that the Supreme Court's subsequent jurisprudence on fundamental rights means the 1962 decision in Kedar Nath Singh is no longer good law.

The current three-judge bench is currently having to decide whether they need to refer the matters to a larger bench, as the Kedar Nath Singh decision upholding sedition was decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing on behalf of the petitioners on Thursday, 5 May, had told the court this was not necessary as they could just focus on how Section 124A violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

These arguments had not been possible in 1962, and therefore the Kedar Nath Singh judgment does not lay down any binding precedent on them, allowing even the current three-judge bench to follow subsequent decisions of the apex court to strike down sedition.

The Centre, in a response to this argument on Saturday, 7 May, said that the matter would have to be referred to at least a bench of five judges, as the court was having to reconsider the ratio decidendi of a five-judge bench.

If the matter has to be referred to a larger bench also, the central government argued, the petitioners would need to show that the 1962 judgment was so patently wrong it needs reconsideration – which they argue has not been done and that the Kedar Nath Singh judgment has stood the test of time.