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

We are making it very clear. We want instructions. We will give you time till tomorrow.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to apprise it about the views on the issue of protection of interest of citizens till the colonial- era penal law on sedition is reconsidered by an appropriate forum.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana took note of the submissions of the Centre that said it has decided to “re-examine and reconsider” the sedition law by an “appropriate forum” and sought the response to a suggestion whether the filing of sedition cases in future be kept at abeyance till re-examination.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that he would take instruction from the government and apprise the bench on Wednesday.

“We are making it very clear. We want instructions. We will give you time till tomorrow. Our specific queries are: one about pending cases and the second, as to how the government will take care of future cases...,” said the bench, also comprising jus

Atices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli

It sought a response on the issue saying “if future cases can be kept at abeyance till reconsideration is over”.

The Union ministry of home affairs in an affidavit filed before the apex court on Tuesday said the decision was in tune with the views of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on shedding “colonial baggage”, noting he has been in favour of the protection of civil liberties and respect of human rights and in that spirit, over 1,500 outdated laws and over 25,000 compliance burdens have been scrapped.

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.

In a fresh affidavit, the Centre on Monday told the apex court that it has decided to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of IPC Section 124A and requested it not to take up the case till the matter is examined by the government.

At the outset, SG Mehta told the Supreme Court that the law requires reconsideration at the level of the executive because sovereignty and integrity of the nation are involved and sought deferment of the hearing of pleas.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, opposed the Centre’s request saying that the Court should proceed to decide the validity irrespective of whether the government is examining the provision or not.

During the hearing, as the bench asked the SG how much time the government would take to complete the exercise, he replied that reconsideration of the law is in the process.

“I wouldn’t be able to give an accurate time frame. The process has started. The court must have seen the tenor and spirit of the affidavit,” the SG said.

Sibal said that the Centre wants to reconsider the sedition law but in the meantime, people are getting arrested under the law.

The bench also highlighted the misuse of the sedition law