CENTRE SEDITION

“The Prime minister has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject and has also periodically, in various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of protection of civil liberties, respect of human rights, and giving meaning to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country,” it said.

It said the prime minister has repeatedly said one of India’s strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish here.

“The PM believes that at a time when the country is marking ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’ (75 years since independence), we need to, as a nation, work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility which includes outdated laws colonial laws and practice,” it said.

Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been decriminalised, it said.

It said the public at large including jurists agrees about the need for statutory provisions to deal with serious offences of divisive nature affecting the very sovereignty and integrity of the country.

“Requiring a penal provision for such purposes is generally accepted by everyone in legitimate State interest,” the affidavit said.

In another written submission, filed earlier, the central government defended the penal law and the 1962 verdict of a constitution bench upholding its validity, saying they have withstood “the test of time” about six decades and the instances of its abuse would never be a justification of reconsideration.

“Instances of the abuse of provision would never be a justification to reconsider a binding judgment of the constitution bench. The remedy would lie in preventing such abuse on a caseto-case basis rather than doubting a long-standing settled law declared by a constitution bench for about six decades,” the earlier written submission said.

The reply also raised the issue of Corum and opposed the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal that in a changed fact situation a bench of three judges can also test the validity of the sedition law, saying “no reference, therefore, would be necessary nor can the three-judge bench once again examine the constitutional validity of the very same provision”.

The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse.

The top court has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition which has been under intense public scrutiny for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments that had led the Chief Justice of India to ask if the colonial-era law, which was used to persecute freedom fighters, was still needed after 75 years of Independence.

“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,” reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.