SC to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of sedition law
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday (April 27) a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli is likely to take up the matter for hearing.
One petition has been filed by retired Army general S.G. Vombatkere and the other by Editors Guild of India.
The top court in April last year had asked the Centre why the provisions used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi continued to survive in the law book even after 75 years of Independence.
"Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak... Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?" Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench, had orally addressed Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
Chief Justice Ramana had said sedition or Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was prone to misuse by the government. "The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself," Chief Justice Ramana had lashed out.
"If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive agencies," the Chief Justice had said.
The Bench had issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by Gen. (retd.) Vombatkere, represented by advocates P.B. Suresh and Prasanna S., to quash Section 124A. The court had also issued notice to the government on a writ petition filed jointly by the Editors Guild of India and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi.
The Bench had noted that two other petitions filed by Kishore Chandra Wangkemcha and M/s Aamoda Broadcasting Company Private Limited, the latter against the Andhra Pradesh government, were pending before the apex court. Both cases concern sedition charges.
Senior journalist Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause, both represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, had also moved the Supreme Cour to quash Section 124A. Their petition contended that a "presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or body".
