Arvind Kejriwal Sedition Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Adjourns Matter To Await Supreme Court's Decision On Section 124A IPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has adjourned the plea seeking to summon Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a Sedition case, citing pendency of Supreme Court's decision on validity of Section 124A IPC.It is alleged that Kejriwal has tweeted a seditious statement in 2019 which encouraged public to "revolt against government of PM Narendra Modi", hence direction is sought to Punjab's Pathankot Court to issue summons.In 2022, the Supreme Court had ordered that the 152-year-old sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.Justice Vikas Behl noted that Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal against order wherein issuing of summons was refused, had referred to Supreme Court's order in S.G.Vombatkere vs. Union of India."A perusal of...(Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot) order would show that it has been recorded in the same that the petitioner had himself admitted in the grounds of appeal that the Judicial Magistrate had not taken cognizance of 124-A IPC on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had put a stay on the said section and the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-complainant to the effect that the complaint under Section 124-A IPC ought to have been kept pending till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as S.G.Vombatkere vs. Union of India reported as 2022(7) Supreme Court Cases 433," the Court noted.It added further that "It is not in dispute that the said case is still pending for final adjudication."Consequently, the plea was adjourned to July 08, "to await the decision" of the decision of Supreme Court in the sedition case.Facts In BriefA complaint was filed by an ex-IRS Officer Tarsem Lal under Sections 124A, 131, 505(1)(a) & (b) of IPC against Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal alleging that he had tweeted a seditious statement in 2019 "to incite the armed forces and paramilitary forces to mutiny and revolt against duly elected government of PM Narinder Modi."It was alleged that Kejriwal tweeted that Pakistan and Imran Khan has supported PM Modi, linking it with Pulwama attack on soldiers.In January, 2023 the complaint was however dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Court in Pathankot, on the ground that the Supreme Court has stayed the section 124-A IPC.The ASJ also dismissed the appeal against Judicial Magistrate's order, confirming the decision.The plea alleged that the statement was tweeted with the intention to tarnish the image of PM Modi and also to incite soldiers to mutiny or seduce them from their duty, which is an offence under Section 131 IPC, and the Trial Court failed to consider.Hence, direction is sought to Trial Court to summon the CM Kejriwal in the case and set side the Trial Court's decision dismissing the complaint.Tarsem Lal has also sought direction to Trial Court to hear the matter on day to day basis as it is a case of an MLA and CM of New Delhi "which needs to be fast tracked."Supreme Court's Order To Keep Sedition In "Abeyance"In May 2022, the Supreme Court had ordered that the 152-year-old sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision. In an interim order, the Court had also urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli said, "We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124 A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over."The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. It has also been ruled that if any fresh case is registered appropriate parties are at liberty to approach courts for appropriate relief and courts are requested to examine the relief sought taking into account the order passed by the court.In September, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that a reference to a larger bench was needed as the provision was upheld by a 5-judge bench in the 1962 judgment Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. Being a smaller bench, it may not be appropriate for it to doubt or overrule Kedar Nath, said the bench led by Chief Justice of India."Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity And Integrity Of India" Under BNS Replacing Sedition In IPCThe Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which is to replace IPC, penalises acts endangering the unity and integrity of India, while sedition criminalised acts against the government, the BNS replaces the "government" with the "country".Aspects of Sedition have been retained under Section 152 under the new BNS, which states that ...

Arvind Kejriwal Sedition Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Adjourns Matter To Await Supreme Court's Decision On Section 124A IPC

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags