Supreme Court refers sedition law pleas to 5-judge Bench
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, September 12
Declining the Centre’s request to defer hearing, the Supreme Court on Tuesday referred petitions challenging the validity of colonial-era sedition law, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
No to defer hearing
We decline the request of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to defer the hearing on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 124A for more than one reason.
— DY Chandrachud, CJI
A three-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said the Constitution Bench would consider if the issue needed to be further referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench in view of the fact that a five-judge Bench had in Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962) upheld the validity of Section 124A. Being a smaller Bench of three judges, it may not be appropriate for it to doubt or overrule the ruling of a five-judge Bench in Kedar Nath Singh’s case, the CJI-led Bench said.
Colonial-Era Law
- The SC is hearing petitions challenging the validity of colonial-era Section 124A of IPC
- SC says Constitution Bench would consider if the issue needed to be referred further to a seven-judge Constitution Bench
- A five-judge Bench had in Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962) upheld the validity of Section 124A of the IPC
Noting that Kedar Nath Singh’s case was decided on the basis of the narrow understanding of fundamental rights prevalent at that time that fundamental rights operated in distinct silos, the Bench said the issue was examined only from the angle of Article 19 (fundamental right to various freedoms). Later, this understanding of fundamental rights changed in view of subsequent verdicts that ruled Articles 14, 19 and 21 operated in harmony.
The top court turned down the Centre’s request to defer the reference to a larger Bench as Parliament is in the process of re-enacting the provisions of the penal code.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Bench to defer the hearing as the Centre proposed to replace the IPC with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that has already been sent to a parliamentary panel for scrutiny and suggestions.
On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar submitted that if the CJI wanted, he could directly refer the matter to a seven-judge Bench. They said the new Bill had a similar and “far worse” provision than sedition. “Sedition exists in the new Bill, just that they have given a new label,” Datar submitted.
“We decline the request of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to defer the hearing on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 124A for more than one reason… Section 124A continues to be on the statute book and the new law in a penal statute will have only prospective effect and that validity of the prosecution remains till 124A remains,” the CJI said, noting that the challenge needed to be examined.
The Bench, which also included Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, asked the Registry to place the matter before the CJI for an appropriate decision on the administrative side for constituting a Bench of the “strength of at least five judges”. In a historic move aimed at overhauling colonial-era criminal laws, the Centre had on August 11 introduced three Bills in the Lok Sabha to replace the IPC, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, respectively.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita proposed to repeal sedition law and to introduce a new provision with a wider definition of the offence.
