Sedition legislation colonial, is it nonetheless wanted… involved over misuse: Supreme Court

Expressing concern over the “misuse” of the sedition legislation and “no accountability of executive agencies”, the Supreme Court sought to know Thursday if this “colonial law” remains to be wanted 75 years after Independence.
Hearing a petition by Major General (retired) SG Vombatkere who has challenged Section 124A of the IPC which offers with the offence of sedition, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana turned to Attorney General Okay Okay Venugopal: “It’s a colonial law. It was meant to suppress the freedom movement. The same law was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak etc. Still, is it necessary after 75 years of independence?”.
Venugopal instructed the bench – it additionally included Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy – that the supply needn’t be struck down and pointers could be set out in order that it meets its authorized goal.
Stating “I am indicating what I am thinking,” the CJI mentioned if one sees the historical past of individuals charged beneath the part, the conviction fee may be very low.

“The enormous power of this section can be compared to a carpenter being given a saw to make an item, (but) uses it to cut the entire forest instead of a tree. That’s the effect of this provision,” he mentioned.
He cited the instance of how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act continues for use even after being struck down by the courtroom in 2015.
“Take the 66A IT Act. Thousands of cases were registered even after being struck down,” he mentioned, including that if the police need to repair someone, they will additionally invoke 124A, and that everyone is somewhat scared when the part is invoked. “These are all issues which need to be looked into,” he mentioned.
“Our concern is misuse of law and no accountability of executive agencies,” the CJI mentioned, clarifying that he was not blaming any state authorities for the misuse.

He mentioned if some get together doesn’t need to hear the voice of one other get together, they could use this kind of legislation and implicate different individuals. “It’s a serious question for individuals,” he mentioned.
The bench puzzled why the federal government, which had repealed various pre-colonial legal guidelines, was not wanting into the sedition legislation.
“Continuation of these types of laws after 75 years! The government has repealed a number of laws now… I don’t know why you are not looking into this,” the CJI mentioned.
Venugopal instructed the courtroom that the supply needn’t be struck down, however pointers may very well be set out in order that the legislation meets its authorized goal.
He mentioned an analogous petition is already pending earlier than a bench headed by Justice U U Lalit and the courtroom has directed that counter-affidavits be filed.
On April 30, the courtroom had issued discover to the Centre on a petition filed by two journalists — Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.
The CJI mentioned he was conscious of this and would determine the way to proceed.
Advocate P B Suresh, showing for petitioner Vombatkere, additionally drew the courtroom’s consideration to the May 31 remarks by a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud which, whereas restraining the Andhra Pradesh police from taking coercive motion in opposition to two TV information channels charged with sedition, mentioned it was of the view that part 124A of the IPC will want interpretation, particularly on its utility with regard to freedom of the press.
Vombatkere’s plea challenges the constitutional validity of the sedition legislation on the bottom that it has a “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on the basic proper of free expression.
He mentioned “a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”.
Meanwhile, in a separate petition, former Union Minister Arun Shourie too has urged the Supreme Court to declare part 124A IPC as unconstitutional.

Referring to the Supreme Court resolution upholding the validity of the supply within the 1962 matter of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, Shourie’s petition states that in that case “the constitutionality of sedition was tested and upheld on the premise that all laws enjoy a ‘presumption of constitutionality’.”
But the courtroom “in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India… and Joseph Shine v. Union of India… has held that the presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or body… and hence ‘Kedar Nath’ needs revisiting”.
He mentioned the Kedar Nath judgment additionally “failed to take note of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia… wherein it was held that (a) only aggravated disturbance of ‘public order’ as opposed to mere ‘law and order’ could be used to restrict freedom of speech and expression, and (b) there should be direct and proximate connection between the instigation and the aggravated disruption of public order”.