Is Sedition law still needed after 75 years of Independence? Supreme Court ask while hearing a plea challenging Sedition Law

While hearing the case of SG Vombatkere vs. Union of India, which challenges the Sedition Law under Section 124A of Indian Penal Code; the Supreme Court of India questioned the Central Government as to whether the said law is still needed after the 75 years of Independence of India.

The plea is filed on the grounds that it violates the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech & Expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and is disproportionate to the object it seeks. It is also contended that Section 124A of IPC causes “impermissible chilling effect on free speech.” The plea further, while citing the example of the judgement in the case of KS Puttaswamy, establishes that “the fundamental rights in the Indian Constitutions need to be read as if the content of each fundamental right animates each other.” It also demands that the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 also has to be tested on the basis of whether the action of the State is proportionate. It contends that it is needed to consider the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 in the light of procedural & substantive due process incarnated under Article 14 & Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of India on July 14, 2021, had asked the Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal to examine the petition for striking down Section 124A of Indian Penal Code.

The Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy issued notice in the matter of SG Vombatkere and tagged it with the petition filed by Editors Guild of India.

While questioning the AG, CJI NV Ramana quoted that conviction rate is very low for the charging under Section 124A of IPC. He proceeded to compare the misuse of this Section to a carpenter using a saw to cut a tree but the entire forest. Further, he also cited an example of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, under which many cases were registered even after the striking down of the said provision.

AG, KK Venugopal, in response to the court’s questions said that Section 124A of IPC need not be struck down. However, he suggested that some guidelines can be set out in this regard, in order to meet the legal purposes of the Section.

The Supreme Court of India, further observed that Section 124A of IPC was used by the British to clamp down the voice of Indian Freedom Fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The CJI also observed that when someone does not like the view of other, he proceeds to misuse the provision, while there is no accountability on behalf of the executive for the same. However, the court also said that the matter of concern here is the misuse of the provision and no accountability of the executive.

The Court further quoted that “If police wants to fix somebody, they can invoke Section 124A and everybody is a little scared when this Section is invoked.”