New Delhi: Supreme court The Center on Thursday questioned the need for a sedition law even after 75 years of the country’s independence, observing that it was a “colonial law used against freedom fighters”.
Chief Justice of India NV. a bench headed by live Why the law cannot be repealed.
“Your government has repealed many old laws, I don’t know why the government is not considering repeal section 124A (which deals with the offense of sedition)?” CJI Ramana asked Attorney General KK Venugopal.
The Bench further asked, “It is a colonial law. It was meant to suppress the freedom movement and the same law was used by the British against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence? ?”
The Chief Justice said that the apex court will consider the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A.
The top court said, “The situation on the ground is grim. If one party does not like what the other is saying, then section 124A is invoked. It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties.” ”
“Using the sedition law is like giving a saw to a carpenter to cut a piece of wood, and he uses it to cut down an entire forest,” the court said.
taking the example of Section 66A, which was rejected by the court but people were arrested, the bench said, “there is an abuse of these provisions but there is no accountability.”
The Attorney General, representing the central government, told the bench that Section 124A does not need to be struck down and only guidelines need to be laid down so that the section can fulfill its legal purpose.
The apex court further told the Attorney General that the conviction rate under Section 124A is very low.
“66A Take IT Act itself, thousands of cases were registered even after breaking it. If any police want to cure someone, then they can also impose section 124A. Everyone is a little scared when this section is implemented. These are all issues which need to be looked into. Our concern is misuse of law and there is no accountability of the executive,” the Chief Justice said.
Meanwhile, the bench also issued notice to the Center on a plea by a former army officer challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law. It also tagged this petition along with other similar pending petitions.
The bench said that in this case the petitioner had laid down his entire life in the service of the country and it cannot be said that it is a motivated petition.
petition filed by retired Major-General SG Wombatkere The constitutional validity of the sedition law was challenged on the grounds that it causes a ‘cold effect’ on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.
He submitted that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition, is completely unconstitutional and should be ‘explicitly and unequivocally abolished’.
Earlier, a separate bench of the apex court had sought the Centre’s response on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law filed by two journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla. Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.
Chief Justice of India NV. a bench headed by live Why the law cannot be repealed.
“Your government has repealed many old laws, I don’t know why the government is not considering repeal section 124A (which deals with the offense of sedition)?” CJI Ramana asked Attorney General KK Venugopal.
The Bench further asked, “It is a colonial law. It was meant to suppress the freedom movement and the same law was used by the British against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence? ?”
The Chief Justice said that the apex court will consider the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A.
The top court said, “The situation on the ground is grim. If one party does not like what the other is saying, then section 124A is invoked. It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties.” ”
“Using the sedition law is like giving a saw to a carpenter to cut a piece of wood, and he uses it to cut down an entire forest,” the court said.
taking the example of Section 66A, which was rejected by the court but people were arrested, the bench said, “there is an abuse of these provisions but there is no accountability.”
The Attorney General, representing the central government, told the bench that Section 124A does not need to be struck down and only guidelines need to be laid down so that the section can fulfill its legal purpose.
The apex court further told the Attorney General that the conviction rate under Section 124A is very low.
“66A Take IT Act itself, thousands of cases were registered even after breaking it. If any police want to cure someone, then they can also impose section 124A. Everyone is a little scared when this section is implemented. These are all issues which need to be looked into. Our concern is misuse of law and there is no accountability of the executive,” the Chief Justice said.
Meanwhile, the bench also issued notice to the Center on a plea by a former army officer challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law. It also tagged this petition along with other similar pending petitions.
The bench said that in this case the petitioner had laid down his entire life in the service of the country and it cannot be said that it is a motivated petition.
petition filed by retired Major-General SG Wombatkere The constitutional validity of the sedition law was challenged on the grounds that it causes a ‘cold effect’ on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.
He submitted that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition, is completely unconstitutional and should be ‘explicitly and unequivocally abolished’.
Earlier, a separate bench of the apex court had sought the Centre’s response on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law filed by two journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla. Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.
.