Supreme Court to Review Validity of Law on Sedition

Supreme Court to review validity of law on sedition

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the verdict needed to be re-looked and whether the penal provision had lost its relevance in the present conditions, six decades after upholding the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code which penalises sedition.

About law on sedition

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj.

Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870.

Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

The sedition law has been in debate ever since it was brought into force by the colonial British rulers in 1860s. Several top freedom movement leaders including Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were booked under the sedition law.

Review of Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph issued notice to the central government on a plea by two journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh – challenging Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code that penalises sedition.

The petitioners said they were charged with sedition for questioning the state governments and the Centre, and for certain comments and cartoons they shared on social media platforms.

They contended that the provision infringes upon the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

In the Kedra Nath judgement, the Supreme Court had held that Section 124A was constitutional since it imposed a reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a).

The plea submitted that in 1962 there may have been a need to use Section 124A as a means to prevent the public violence and public disorder that fell short of waging war against the state. “Section 124-A, was, at the time a necessary tool in crime control,” it added. “But that is not the case in 2021.”