SC has taken note of Section 124A misuse

Context: Recently, Union Law Minister replied in Parliament that there is no proposal to scrap sedition charges from the Indian Penal Code.

What is being debated about it?

• Liberals and rights activists have been demanding the scrapping of Section 124A.
• It is argued that the provision is “overbroad”, i.e., it defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens.

The Law Commission has also called for a reconsideration of the section.

• It has pointed that Britain abolished it more than a decade ago and raised the question of whether a provision introduced by the British to put down the freedom struggle should continue to be law in India.
• Some argue that a presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or bodies.

Judicial View on Sedition Law

• Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana delivered a stinging rebuke to the government in open court regarding the stifling impact of “colonial law,” which restricts ordinary people’s liberties.

The CJI likened the use of the sedition charge (Section 124A of the IPC) to a carpenter being handed a tool “to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to chop the entire forest altogether.”

• The Chief Justice questioned why a democracy required a legislation that had been used by the British to arrest Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal answered in court to the CJI’s oral observations, stating there was no need to strike down Section 124A.

• The court has already requested a formal response from the government by giving notice on a petition to quash Section 124A submitted by Major General S.G. Vombatkere (retd.).
• A petition filed by renowned journalist Arun Shourie and the NGO Common Cause, both represented by counsel Prashant Bhushan, contends that Section 124A lacks even a “presumption of legality.”

Significance of Remark

• The CJI’s remarks in court show that the top court has taken judicial note of the State’s abuse of the sedition provision.
• The observations were made by the CJI throughout the court’s sessions.
• Though not part of a formal order or verdict, oral observations made during a court hearing reflect the constitutional court’s train of thought.
• Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in the Shreya Singhal case called for the repeal of ambiguous rules that stifle free expression and limit personal liberty.

What is its origin?
Colonial past: Sedition was introduced in the penal code in 1870, a decade after the Indian Penal Code came into force.

• It was a colonial law directed against strong criticism of the British administration.

Putting curb on Freedom fighters: Its most famous victims included Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.

• Gandhiji called it “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

Is it constitutionally valid?

• Violative of FRs: Two high courts had found it unconstitutional after Independence, as it violated the freedom of speech and expression.
• Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution was amended to include ‘public order’ as one of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on which free speech could be abridged by law.
• Kedar Nath Case: Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld its validity.

Road Ahead

• The time is long past when the mere criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition. The right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather than a weakness, the CJI has recorded.