SC puts on hold colonial-era sedition law, prohibits FIRs AS SC PAUSES SEDITION LAW, LAW MIN SAYS LAKSHMAN REKHA IS IMPORTANT
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold the 152-year-old colonial-era penal provision of sedition while emphasising the need to preserve the civil liberty of the citizens. This came a day after the court set a 24-hour deadline for the Centre to decide if the Indian Penal Code (IPC)’s Section 124A can be put on hold “to protect people” from arrests until the government reviews the law.
In an interim order, a Chief Justice of India NV Ramana-led bench said it would be appropriate to put the provision in abeyance until the Centre reviews the non bailable section punishable with jail term ranging from three years to the life term.
“It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over. We hope and expect the Centre and states will desist from registering any FIR [First Information Report] under Section 124A or initiate proceedings under the same till the re-examination is over,” said the bench, which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.
The court said those jailed under the penal provision or being prosecuted can approach the trial courts to adjudicate their grievances expeditiously. It rejected the Centre’s request against staying the operation of the provision. The court said it must balance civil liberty and sovereignty of the state in the wake of several instances of abuse of the law.
The court said the Centre is at liberty to issue additional guidelines to states and Union territories (UTs) on checking the misuse of the law.
Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that Section 124A should not be put in abeyance, considering that a Constitution Bench upheld its validity in the 1962 Kedar Nath judgment. “Once there is a congisable offence, either the government or the court, by an interim order, staying the effect may not be a correct approach.”
Mehta proposed the Centre could issue an advisory to states and UTs that no new sedition case should be lodged without approval in writing from a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. “This can also be later subjected to judicial scrutiny,” said Mehta.
On the pending cases, Mehta said the gravity of each case was not known. “There may be a terror angle or money laundering. Ultimately, the pending cases are before the judicial forum, and we need to trust the courts. What your lordships can consider is...the bail applications may be decided expeditiously.”
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners who have challenged the validity of the sedition law, countered Mehta. “This is wholly unacceptable to us. The government made the same argument when the validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was being... [challenged]. Then the court said that giving the power to an SP [superintendent of police] would mean nothing and that it would decide the validity
NEW DELHI: As the Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold the application of sedition law, Union law minister Kiren Rijiju invoked the “Lakshman Rekha” guiding different institutions, including the executive and the judiciary, and said no one should cross it.
Responding to queries by reporters after the top court gave its directions, Rijiju said, “We respect each other. Court should respect the government, legislature. So as the government also should respect court. We have clear demarcation of boundary and that ‘Lakshman Rekha’ should not be crossed by anybody.”
Addressing the April 30 joint conference of chief justices of high courts and chief ministers , chief justice of India NV Ramana had also highlighted the significance of ‘Lakshman Rekha’.
Reminding the state’s three organs — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — to be “mindful of the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ while discharging their duties”, CJI Ramana had assured governments that “the judiciary would never come in the way of governance if it is in accordance with law”.