Sedition law threatens Fundamental Rights: Plea in SC challenges validity

The petition states that the misuse of the provision is stifling the freedom of speech and expression of Indians

sedition law

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code as ultra-vires the Constitution of India. This has been filed by petitioners, Advocates Aditya Ranjan, Varun Thakur and V. Elenchezhiyan.

According to LiveLaw, the plea states that a colonial provision like section 124A which was intended to subjugate the subjects of British crown should not be permitted to continue in a democratic Republic, under the continuously expanding scope of fundamental rights.

The petitioners have stated that there is an increasing chilling effect of the blatant misuse of section 124A of the Penal Code on constitutional democracy, fundamental rights and under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.

They have contended that the indiscriminate and unlawful use of the Sedition law against journalists, women, children, students and other persons is in clear defiance of the interpretation given by the top court.

The plea further mentions that while democratic principles have evolved, the impugned law which is a relic of the colonial era, is still stifling the freedom of speech and expression in India and threatening the life and liberty of citizens of India if they choose to express dissent against policies of the Governments in power, reported LiveLaw.

The petition cites cases like Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) where the Court had clarified that merely shouting slogans, in this case “Khalistan Zindabad”, does not amount to sedition and Shreya Singhal Vs. UOI (2015) where it had held that a speech should be considered as a whole in a free, fair and liberal spirit, and not in parts to invoke the section.

The plea, as per a LiveLaw report, argues that the sedition provision needs to be critically examined since its continuance without corresponding safeguards as provided under the UAPA is unreasonable and unwarranted and that the law doesn’t lay down any institutional responsibility on the Police in case of its misuse and no procedural safeguards are available under the code of Criminal Procedure unlike UAPA. 

The petition has sought directions from the apex court to direct the Government to instruct their respective Heads of Police to ensure that the police act with greater sensitivity and refrain from arresting citizens merely for raising stray slogans without creating any adverse law and order situation.

It also seeks that all States follow the principle that only written or spoken words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government by violent means alone have been made penal by section 124A.

Related:

State needs to be tolerant while invoking sedition laws: Punj & Haryana HC

Criticising the Government, not sedition: Uttarakhand HC

Sedition or Dissent? The Government Can’t Seem to Tell the Difference

Trending

IN FOCUS

Related Articles

ALL STORIES

ALL STORIES