In abeyance of Section 124A, a provisional relief

News: Recently, In Supreme Court of India in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India has directed governments, both at the level of the Union and the States, to keep “all pending trials, appeals and proceedings” arising out of a charge framed under Section 124A “in abeyance”.

About Section 124A

How have the Court granted a temporary suspension of the provision?

The Union government has submitted an affidavit indicating a willingness to re-examine Section 124A.

The affidavit allowed the judges to issue such an interim order where the provision will be kept in abeyance until the Government, and Parliament, take a final call on the matter.

Argument against the provision

K.M. Munshi said in the Constituent Assembly, “The criticism of the government is the essence of democracy”.

It is a colonial-era law used against India freedom fighters. For example, the act was invoked against Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mohandas Gandhi.

K.M. Munshi argued in the Constituent Assembly to delete the word “sedition” as a permitted restriction on free speech to prevent perpetuation of 124-A of the I.P.C”. Therefore, The Constitution did not permit a restriction on free speech on the grounds of sedition.

The law has been used as a restraint on dissent, to crush opposition aimed at the government. The governments across India continued to charge people with the offence.

In the 1950s, two different High Courts struck down Section 124A as offensive to freedom.

In the Kedarnath case, the SC limited the scope of law to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”. However, the limitations imposed have rarely been observed. The law has been over exploited.

Since 1973, the sedition law has also been treated as a cognisable offence. The police can arrest a suspect without a warrant.

Since the 1962 Judgment, the Supreme Court’s reading of fundamental rights has undergone a transformative change. For instance, the Court has, in recent times, struck down penal laws on grounds of lack of clarity in language, and of the chilling effect on free speech. The CJI had indicated that the law was an anachronism, a colonial-era relic.

Argument in favour

In 1962, the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar declared the Section 124A as a valid restriction on free speech on grounds of public order.

The Way Forward

The government’s intention of re-examining the law indicates that “the Sedition law is not in tune with the current social milieu in India.

The Court may constitute a Bench of five judges to decide upon the constitutionality of the sedition law.

Source: The post is based on an article “In abeyance of Section 124A, a provisional relief” published in the “The Hindu” on 16^th May 2022.