Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 15: The Supreme Court on Thursday made it clear that it was not in favour of the sedition act and asked the centre why the government needed to continue the “colonial law” in the statute book even 75 years after the independence.
Pointing out that the sedition law was used by the then British government against the freedom fighters and leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana asked the centre why was section 124(A) (Sedition Law) of the Indian Penal Code was not looked into when the present government expunged many “stale laws” from the statute book.
Concerned over the “enormous misuse” of the colonial era penal law, the court noted, “The sedition law is a colonial law and was used by the British and to suppress our freedom. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.”
While stating that it would examine the validity of the sedition law, the apex court sought the Centre’s response over it and asked, “Is this law still needed after 75 years of Independence?”
The apex court’s oral comments against the sedition law were an unprecedented judicial criticism of the way the sedition law is used by the government to crush liberties. Ramana asked why a colonial law used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak continued to survive in the law book after 75 years of Independence.
“Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak… Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?” Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench, orally addressed Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
The CJI said sedition law was prone to misuse by the government. “The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself,” Chief Justice Ramana lashed out.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, said several petitions have challenged the sedition law and all would be heard together.
The CJI’s oral statement in open court takes a significant note amidst rising public denouncement of Central and State law enforcement agencies using the sedition law to silence dissent, muffle free expression and for denying bail to incarcerated activists, journalists, students and civil society members. A number of petitions have been filed highlighting the “chilling effect” sedition has on the fundamental right of free speech. The CJI’s remarks have also opened the floor for debate and introspection on the court’s own judgment in 1962, in the Kedar Nath case, which upheld Section 124A.
The CJI drew the attention of the Attorney General to the conviction rates under sedition. “If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive agencies,” the Chief Justice said.
The CJI asked the government why it did not throw out the sedition law along with the hundreds of “stale laws” it had expunged from the statute books. “Your government is taking out a lot of stale laws from the law books, why have they not looked into this,” Chief Justice asked Venugopal.
People had suffered and were scared of the misuse of the sedition law, Chief Justice Ramana said. “We are not blaming any particular government or State. But do look how section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used. How many unfortunate people have suffered? And there is no accountability for all this…” he noted.
The CJI said the sweeping powers of Section 124A gives even a village police officer carte blanche to trample on the right to liberty and free speech of ordinary citizens. “If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124A… People are scared. Our concern is misuse of the law and the lack of accountability. Why has it continued in the statute book even after 75 years of our Independence,” Chief Justice Ramana asked the government’s law officers repeatedly.
The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court would “definitely look into this Section 124A.”
He said, “The situation on the ground is grave… If one party does not like what the other is saying, Section 124A is used… It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties,” Ramana noted.
Venugopal, however, made the government’s point of view on the issue clear opposing striking down the law. He submitted that the court need not strike down Section 124A, but it would be enough to “see if there were any excesses in its use and limit the Section to its real purpose… That would be enough,” Mr. Venugopal said.
Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, the court added, “Our concern is misuse of the law and no accountability of the executive.”
The Bench issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere, represented by advocates P.B. Suresh and Prasanna S., to quash Section 124A.
The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India” a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Wondering at the continuance of the sedition law in statute book for the last 75 years, the court said, “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws.”
CJI Ramana said “a factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people,” adding that if a particular party or people do not want to hear a voice, they will use this law to implicate others.
Earlier, a separate bench had sought response from the Centre on the plea challenging validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists — Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla — working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.
