The top court today was hearing a batch of petitions, which now goes to the constitution bench, both by the NGOs and individuals challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
Introduced during the colonial era, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines sedition as any act that attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government of India.
Calling Sedition "reasonable restriction" under Article 19 (2), the Law Commission pointed out that the Supreme Court while dealing with the constitutionality of Section 124A held that the law was 'constitutional' as the restriction it sought to impose was a reasonable restriction.
Citing the SC order, the officials, on condition of anonymity, said the Supreme Court has only said it “expects" that nobody will use Section 124A till the Central Government decides on the matter, and has not stayed the provision of sedition.
The Centre today filed its affidavit before the Supreme Court, and stated that it wanted to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124-A (Sedition law) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Central government in its affidavit further stated that individual instances of misuse are not ground to reconsider Kedar Nath Singh.
The Top Court asked the AG, even to consider your contention that 124A is not a bad law, we can straightway go to merits.
The Apex Court said, it would commence the final hearing in the matter on May 5 and would not entertain any request for adjournment of the matter.
Chief Justice said, "When a political party is in power, police officials side with it... then when a new party comes into power, the government initiates action against those officials. This is a new trend, which needs to be stopped".
Even those airing grievances against the government’s handling of the Covid pandemic were charged with sedition. Scrapping the sedition law brooks no delay.
