Section 124A, commonly known as the sedition law, is a crucial provision in the Indian Penal Code that dates back to 1860, during British colonial rule. This law criminalizes any expression—be it words, signs, or visible representations—that could incite "disaffection" towards the government.
The Supreme Court has chosen to revisit Section 124A in light of petitions challenging its constitutional validity. This decision comes as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill is proposed to replace the existing penal code, stirring significant public and legal interest.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill seeks to replace the colonial-era penal code of 1860. Currently, this draft law is under review by a parliamentary standing committee and is expected to be presented in the Winter Session of Parliament.
The government has suggested deferring the Supreme Court case until after the parliamentary decision on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this suggestion, opting to refer the matter to a larger bench of five judges for a thorough examination.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has indicated that even if the new law is enacted, it will only apply to future cases. Ongoing prosecutions under Section 124A will persist unless the new law explicitly provides for retrospective application or parliament declares existing cases void.
Senior advocates representing petitioners have raised concerns regarding the proposed clause to replace Section 124A. They argue that this new clause, which avoids the term 'sedition', could be more severe, categorizing offenses as acts that "endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India".
During recent hearings, the Supreme Court refrained from commenting on the bill and its provisions. However, it underscored the need to consider the landmark 1962 judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar case, which upheld the legality of Section 124A but limited its application to "activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create disturbance of public peace".
The Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar case from 1962 is a landmark decision that reinforced the constitutional validity of Section 124A. This ruling established critical boundaries for the application of sedition law in India.
Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party, faced sedition charges for allegedly delivering inflammatory speeches against the government. This case prompted scrutiny of the constitutional integrity of Section 124A.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A, asserting that it does not infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court specified that the law should apply primarily to acts involving incitement to violence or the intention to disturb public peace.
In its ruling, the court clarified that comments on government actions aimed at effecting change through lawful means do not constitute sedition, emphasizing the right of citizens to express their views on the government.
The Kedar Nath Singh ruling remains a critical precedent as the Supreme Court re-evaluates Section 124A's constitutional validity. This historic judgment will significantly influence the future interpretation and application of sedition law in India.
This case is pivotal in the legal framework of India as it upheld the sedition law while establishing essential boundaries to prevent misuse. It aimed to strike a balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual freedom of speech.
Q1. What is Section 124A in India?
Answer: Section 124A, known as the sedition law, criminalizes expressions that incite disaffection towards the government. It is part of the Indian Penal Code formulated in 1860.
Q2. Why is the Supreme Court reviewing Section 124A?
Answer: The Supreme Court is revisiting Section 124A due to petitions challenging its constitutional validity, especially in the context of the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill.
Q3. What was the outcome of the Kedar Nath Singh case?
Answer: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A, limiting its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disturbance, thereby safeguarding freedom of speech.
Q4. What concerns have been raised about the new clause replacing Section 124A?
Answer: Critics argue that the new clause, which avoids the term 'sedition', is more draconian, defining offenses broadly and potentially threatening individual freedoms.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
