- Prelims Test Series (PTS) for Prelims 2027 starts 11th Oct. 2026 Click Here to know more →
- Ethics Redbook 3rd Edition: A Textbook That Teaches You How to Think Ethically Click Here to Read More →
- 21 Sept. | Forum Residential Coaching (FRC) for UPSC preparation Click Here to know more →
- 21 Sept. | GS Advance Program (GSAP) for UPSC 2027 Mains starts from 10th Oct. Click Here to Read More →
Source: This post is created based on the article “No further delay”, published in Business Standard on 3rd May 2023.
Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 – Governance – Criminal Justice System
Context: The article analyses the progress on the Supreme Court’s order that ordered the government to stop registering cases under Section 124A of IPC.
India’s Supreme Court (SC) ordered the government, last year, to suspend all sedition trials and stop registering cases under Section 124A of the IPC until the provision was reviewed.
Consequently, those detained under this law were permitted to apply for bail. However, the government recently informed the SC that stakeholder consultation is not yet complete. It resulted in the postponement of the case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 124A.
This delay leaves the contentious law in a state of uncertainty.
What are the issues with government’s delay in fulfilling the SC’s order?
Shows unwillingness: The government’s extended consultation period demonstrates its previous unwillingness to address the issue.
Against democratic ethos: Section 124A, implemented by colonial rulers, is inconsistent with India’s democratic constitution and dedication to free speech.
Ambiguity of the law: Supreme Court decision in Kedar Nath versus State of Bihar, contributed to making this law more ambiguous. The ruling maintained the legality of Section 124A but made its application conditional. It allowed the state to interpret the law widely to arrest dissidents.
From 2015 to 2020, 356 cases were filed under the sedition law, with only 12 convictions. The petitioners have called for a review by a seven-judge Bench. The Supreme Court should expedite its decision, as Section 124A provides state actors with a tool to suppress dissenting voices.
