The Centre on Saturday, 7 May, told the Supreme Court that the the judgement in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar is a good precedent and that there is no need to revisit it, reported LiveLaw.
The Centre's statement comes after a Chief Justice of India (CJI)-led bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday, 5 May, asked the petitioners as well as the central government to give their written submissions on whether the petitions challenging constitutionality of the sedition law should be referred to a larger bench.
An apex court bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and Surya Kant is presently hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code).
However, the court had wondered if they can proceed with the case without reference of the Kedarnath Singh judgment – which had said that Section 124A of the IPC was constitutional and could remain a part of the law – to a larger bench, as “each one of you says Kedarnath needs to be overruled.”
Major General SG Vombatkere, a retired Army officer had filed the lead petition on the issue. Other petitioners who have challenged Section 124A of the IPC include the Editors Guild of India, as well as veteran journalist and former Union Minister Arun Shourie.
What Did the Centre Say?
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that the judgement in Kedar Nath Singh is a constitution bench judgment and is binding on a three-judge bench.
"The five-judge bench read down Section 124A only to bring it in conformity with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. No reference, therefore, would be necessary nor can the three-Judge Bench once again examine the constitutional validity of the very same provision," the Centre stated.
Mehta also told the court that isolated instances of misuse of the law cannot be a reason for uprooting the precedent, the report said.
"Instances of the abuse of provision would never be a justification to reconsider a binding judgment of the constitution bench. The remedy would lie in preventing such abuse on a case-to-case basis rather than doubting a long standing settled law declared by a constitution bench since about six decades," the Centre said, according to LiveLaw.
The SG then concluded his arguments by stating that a 3-judge bench cannot examine the challenge to section 124A, saying that it has to be referred to a larger bench for consideration.
"The bench of three Judges cannot itself decide whether Kedar Nath Singh [supra] is a good law or not," Mehta further stated in his submission.
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)