Sedition- Supreme Court Hearing On Constitutional Validity Of Section 124A IPC- Live Updates
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has taken up the petitions challenging Section 124A IPC.While issuing notice on the petitions in July 2021, the CJI had orally made critical remarks against the provision."Is it still necessary to retain this colonial law which the British used to suppress Gandhi, Tilak etc., even after 75 years...
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has taken up the petitions challenging Section 124A IPC.
While issuing notice on the petitions in July 2021, the CJI had orally made critical remarks against the provision.
"Is it still necessary to retain this colonial law which the British used to suppress Gandhi, Tilak etc., even after 75 years of independence?", the CJI had asked the Attorney General for India.
"If we go see history of charging of this section, the enormous power of this section can be compared to a carpenter being given a saw to make an item, uses it to cut the entire forest instead of a tree. That's the effect of this provision", the CJI said.
In April 2021, another bench led by Justice UU Lalit had issued notice on a petition filed by two journalists challenging Section 124A IPC. A Petition filed by journalists Patricia Mukhim and Anuradha Bhasin on the same issue is also pending.
Follow Live Updates Here
Bench: Written submissions from
Both sides by Saturday morning on issue of referring matter to larger bench or not. For hearing on this issue Tuesday at 2 pm
Bench: Give your written arguments. We’ll keep it on Monday. We’ll only give half hour.
SG: please keep on Tuesday there’s a personal difficulty.
Sibal: please keep on Monday.
Sibal: there’s a confusion between 19(2) and 124 A. 124 A doesn’t deal with state but govt. 19 deals with Govt. We’re not challenging power of govt to frame law to restrict freedom of speech, we’re challenging right of govt to restrict from holding protest against govt.
Sibal: That’s what Mahatma said, its my right to create disaffection against govt.
Sibal: we’re not challenging law of state to proceed, but right of govt under 124 A.
AG: Question is what is so abhorrent in 124A which merely protects state’s & citizen’s security from public disorder. Kedar nath is valid & there’s no ground for referring it. Article 14&21 is brought in will make no difference.
AG: Its been held that if law which is valid but its been misused, the law may not become invalid. Mere fact you’re implementing it legitimately make unconstitutional law valid
AG: So far as state is concerned, allegation is they are using it for religious strife etc where state isn’t directly involved. In such cases question arises if statute on face is valid, its been held valid, but its been misused etc then is the law bad
AG: Question with regard to reference to larger bench has been raised in petitions. There are 2 judgements, one of Privy council & Federal court. This was considered in Kedar nath and they followed Federal court’s judgement
AG: Notice has been issued to me as AG
CJI: He’s asking for an adjournment
AG: my stand may be different
SG: AG isnt aware of Centre’s stand
CJI: let AG submit. I don’t want to give an impression he wasn’t given a chance to argue
AG: Kedar nath has traced the entire history & concluded after deliberate consideration, but they’ll have to show something’s wrong even on change of law
Bench: they’ll show that once bench is constituted