Supreme Court of India. (PTI File Photo)
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre's stand on keeping the pending sedition cases in abeyance to protect the interests of citizens already booked and not registering fresh cases till the government's re-examination of the colonial-era penal law is over. It wanted a response on Wednesday.
Asking the Centre to take a clear stand after it posed the two specific queries, the top court agreed that a re-look of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) be left to the government, a day after it had filed an affidavit deciding to reconsider the contentious provision.
The court, however, expressed concern over the continuous abuse of the provision and even suggested that guidelines may be issued to stop the abuse or a decision to keep the sedition law in abeyance till the review exercise is completed.
The Centre's affidavit had said it has decided to "re-examine and re-consider" the sedition law by an appropriate forum , in a change of stance just two days after stoutly defending this law, and also urged the Supreme Court not to "invest time" in examining its validity once again.
The top court, which was to decide whether a three or five-judge bench should hear the batch of pleas challenging the validity of the sedition law, took note of the fresh stand of the government.
Quoting the latest affidavit, which also referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's views on issues like shedding of colonial baggage , protection of civil liberties, and respect of human rights, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said, What we feel is that the State has said they want to do something. We should not be unreasonable .
The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said our specific query is on two issues. One is about the pending cases and the second is, how the government will take care of future cases till the reconsideration. These are the two issues. Nothing else.
The bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to apprise the court of the Centre's stand on Wednesday when it may pass some orders. The sedition law has been under intense public scrutiny in the recent years over its alleged misuse by authorities.
Referring to the possible misuse of the provision, the bench said even the attorney general had said as to how the law was invoked even for chanting Hanuman Chalisa' and asked the Centre to come up with some response.
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....
Mehta said the filing of FIR and the investigations are done by the states and the Centre has no role in them, and that there are constitutional courts for granting remedies against any misuse of the provision based on the facts of each case.
"We cannot ask everyone to go and attend the courts and be in jail for months. When the government itself has shown concerns about misuse then how will you protect them? We have to balance. There are people who are jailed and people who are going to be booked ... Please make your stand clear on this," the bench said.
A total 356 cases of sedition--as defined under Section 124A of IPC--were registered and 548 persons arrested between 2015 and 2020, according to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). However, just 12 persons arrested in seven sedition cases were convicted in this six-year period.
The bench also asked how much time the government will take in reconsidering the sedition law.
To this, the solicitor general said he cannot give the accurate time, but the process has been initiated and from the tenor and spirit of the affidavit , it was evident that there was an application of mind involved in the process.
"You have used the word competent forum' and will re-examine it. Why not the Central government through its ministry issue a direction to the states that the matters under Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC be kept in abeyance till the issue is under reconsideration, the bench said.
The law officer said such an order has not been passed by the apex court in the history of this country directing that a penal provision be not used.
"We are not talking about all provisions. Section 124A only," the bench responded.
The bench said that even in the 1962 judgement in the Kedar Nath Singh case, which had upheld the validity of the sedition law, the provision was melted down but at ground level local police are operating.
Unless you issue a direction that you are reconsidering the provision and no cases be registered. They will not act."
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, opposed the Centre's response saying the top court cannot be asked to stop hearing a constitutional challenge.
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from news agency feeds and has not been edited by The Morung Express.
Source: PTI
