NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concerns over the “enormous misuse” of the colonial era law of sedition and asked the government whether the penal provision, used to silence Mahatma Gandhi, was still needed 75 years after Independence.
“We don’t know why the government is not taking a decision (on sedition). Your government has been getting rid of stale laws,” a Bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said on pleas filed by The Editors Guild of India and a former Major General. Both the petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC. The SC’s remarks were widely hailed by the Opposition with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra hailing the observations. Moitra and Swaraj Abhiyan leader Yogendra Yadav questioned the charges of sedition against farmers by the Haryana Police. “Ironic that the Haryana Police charged over 100 farmers with sedition after alleged attack on BJP leader’s vehicle while the SC questions why we have this outdated law?” said Moitra.
Yadav, pointing to the SC’s question whether sedition was still needed, said, “Yes, that’s the question, case in point. Yesterday, a sedition case was registered against farmers in Sirsa for breaking the windshield of a minister’s vehicle. That is what the law is being used for.” Earlier, observing that their main concern was misuse of the law, the Bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, said, “Mr Attorney (General), we want to ask some questions. This is the colonial-era law and the same was used by the British to suppress the freedom movement.”
Attorney General KK Venugopal defended the section and said it be allowed to remain on the statute and the court could lay down guidelines to curb its misuse.
The offence under Section 124A is non-bailable. It penalises speech or expression attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Bench said the sedition law had been put to enormous misuse and observed, “It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut a wood, cut the entire forest.”
The CJI said if a “particular party did not want to hear a voice, they would use this law to implicate others”. The Bench also noted that it was not blaming any state or government, but “unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and there is no accountability”. It also referred to a very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases while hearing the matter in a virtual mode.