Why can’t sedition law be put on hold, asks SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set a deadline of 24 hours for the Union government to decide if the penal provision of sedition in India can be put on hold “to protect people” from arrests until the government reviews the colonial-era law.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, put the government in the dock a day after the Centre filed an affidavit to state that it has decided to review Section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and hence, the court should hold its hands till this exercise gets over.

On Tuesday, the top court was unequivocal that it will accept the government’s request to pause the judicial scrutiny for a few months, but added a rider — the pending criminal prosecutions under the sedition law as well as the cases that may be lodged in future should be kept in abeyance across the country for the time being.

Expressing serious concerns over misuse of the sedition law and the neglect of the guidelines issued by the top court in its previous judgments, the bench said that a mechanism must be put in place immediately to “protect the rights and liberty of people” since the Centre wants suspension of the court proceedings till the government takes a call on the issue. Section 124A is a non-bailable offence punishable with jail term ranging from three years to life.

“We cannot ask everyone to go to the courts and be in jail for a few months till some court gives bail. When the government is showing concerns about misuse of the law, violations of liberty and human rights, how are you going to protect people? We have to balance the rights of the people who are jailed and those who are going to be booked. You can take two or three months to complete your consultative exercise but tell us how will you protect people in the meantime,” the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, asked SG Tushar Mehta, who appeared for Centre.

Mehta said putting a penal provision in suspension across the board may also affect prosecution in serious cases . The court replied there are enough provisions in a raft of statutes to deal with grave offences.