Sedition law needed to safeguard nation, A-G submits in apex court

THE THREE-JUDGE BENCH ALSO DELIBERATED ON REFERRING THE PETITIONS CHALLENGING SECTION 124A (SEDITION LAW) OF THE IPC TO A LARGER BENCH

The penal provision of sedition in India must be retained to ascertain the security of the nation and its citizens, attorney general (A-G) KK Venugopal submitted before the Supreme Court on Thursday, adding that some guidelines may be laid down by the court to control the misuse of the statutory provision.

Presenting a strong defence of the constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the top law officer told a bench, led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, that the contours of the penal provision have already been delineated by a constitution bench in 1962 and therefore, there is no need to take a relook at the provision.

Venugopal, however, submitted that he is simply assisting the court in the matter, and that the stand of the central government, which is to be conveyed through the solicitor general (S-G) , could be different from his views.

“According to me, Kedar Nath (the Constitution bench judgment of 1962) is a very balanced judgment between security of state and freedom of speech. This section (124A) has to be retained. I am saying some guidelines can still be issued. What’s happening in this country? Yesterday, someone was released on bail after getting arrested since they wanted to recite Hanuman Chalisa,” the A-G told the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

Venugopal was referring to the bail granted to Amravati MP Navneet Rana and her husband MLA Ravi Rana on Wednesday. The couple was arrested by Mumbai Police on April 23 for alleged offences of sedition and breach of harmony following their call to chant the Hanuman Chalisa in front of Shiv Sena supremo and Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s family residence Matoshree.

In the Kedar Nath case, a Constitution bench upheld the validity of the sedition law under IPC, holding that the purpose of the crime of sedition was to prevent the government established by law from being subverted because “the continued existence of the Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State”. Section 124A is punishable with a jail term ranging from three years to life.

At the same time, the fivejudge bench defined the scope of Section 124A. It held that Section 124A only penalised words that reveal an intent or tendency to disturb law and order or that seem to incite violence. The Supreme Court underlined that the presence of a pernicious tendency to incite violence is a precondition to invoke the sedition clause and that the penal provision cannot be used to stifle free speech.