A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice likened Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on sedition to “a saw” used to cut a forest instead of a piece of wood.
AGENCIES / NEW DELHI
Expressing deep concern over “enormous misuse” of the colonial era penal law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to “silence” people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress freedom movement.
Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC, a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said its main concern was the “misuse of law” and issued the notice to the Centre.
“The sedition Law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence,” Chief Justice NV Ramana questioned. The court asked why the government, while taking a number of dated laws off the statute book, “is not looking into this law”. The government’s top lawyer, Attorney General KK Venugopal, argued that the law should be retained with “guidelines”.
A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice likened Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on sedition to “a saw” used to cut a forest instead of a piece of wood.
“There is enormous misuse. The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself. That is the effect of this law,” the court said.
“If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124 A… People are scared.”
The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India” a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
“Mr Attorney (General), we want to ask some questions. This is the colonial era law and the same law was used by the British to suppress freedom movement. It was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Gokhale and others.
“Is it still necessary to keep this in statute even after 75 years of Independence?” asked the bench which also comprised Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.
Observing that the provision on sedition had been put to “enormous misuse”, it also referred to alarming misuse of Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back and observed: “It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut a wood, cut the entire forest.”
“A factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people,” the CJI said, adding that if a particular party or people did not want to hear a voice, they would use this law to implicate others.
The bench wondered at the continuance of the sedition law in the statute book for the last 75 years and said: “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws.”
The bench said it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and “there is no accountability”.
In a hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said if a police officer in a remote village wanted to fix a person then he could easily do so by using such provisions.
Moreover, said the bench, there was very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases and these are the issues which are needed to be decided.
The CJI, on being told that another bench headed by Justice UU Lalit has been hearing a similar plea which has been fixed for further consideration on July 27, said he would take a call on posting of the matter and notify the date of hearing.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was asked to assist the bench in dealing with the case, defended the provision and said it be allowed to remain in the statute book and the court might lay down guidelines to curb the misuse.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Editors Guild of India, said a separate plea had been filed by the journalists’ body challenging the validity of Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC and that plea could also be tagged along with the present one.
He said that besides challenging the validity, the Guild had also sought framing of guidelines to curb the misuse.
The bench was hearing the fresh plea by former army officer, Major-General SG Vombatkere (retd), challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC on the grounds that it caused a “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.