The Supreme Court has placed the sedition law on pause and asked the Centre and states to stop from registering FIRs.
The Supreme Court has directed state and federal governments to avoid from filing any FIRs or initiating any actions under Indian Penal Code Section 124A, which deals with sedition.
The Supreme Court delayed the application of the sedition statute and barred the filing of FIRs under it till it is reviewed on May 11. “We expect that this statute will not be employed until the re-examination of this law is completed,” the SC’s NV Ramana-led Bench remarked.
In the pending sedition proceedings, the court stated that persons detained on sedition allegations are free to attend designated courts and request bail. “Those currently in jail under Section 124A IPC could approach competent courts for appropriate remedies and bail,” the Supreme Court observed. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code deals with seditious behaviour.
The provision of Section 124A has been suspended for the first time since its establishment. The provision would be postponed indefinitely pending further judicial orders, according to the courts. The Supreme Court further stated that the Union government has the authority to issue new directives to states.
Earlier in the day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Centre has submitted a draught for the law’s review.
According to the draught, a sedition FIR will only be filed if a police officer with the level of SP decides there is a solid justification for it.
Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Centre was considering revising the sedition statute.
“Where there is a cognizable offence, the Constitutional court should not stay the [investigation] order,” Mehta contended. Allow a responsible senior officer to conduct the investigation under judicial supervision.”
“This is a cognizable offence,” he stated of the ongoing cases involving the invocation of sedition law. We have no idea how serious each pending offence is. Terrorism, money laundering, or any other crime could be involved.”
The cases are being handled by a judicial authority rather than the police. When a bail application is filed, the court may consider expediting the process. “However, the provision will not be appropriate if you stay,” Mehta remarked.
Mehta responded to Kapil Sibal, who was attending on behalf of the petitioner to seek the court’s orders on ongoing cases, by saying that the court making an interim decision on a cognizable offence at the behest of third parties in a PIL would set a poor precedent.
“The prima facie conclusion of this court is that Section 124 was enforced when India was under colonial control,” CJI Ramana stated. The Centre stated that the law would be reconsidered and that the civil rights of the people would be protected of India. There is a legal misunderstanding. The AG had also provided examples of such abuse.”
“Neither the state nor the federal governments should file any FIRs or pursue any procedures under Section 124A,” he stated.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for the third week of July, postponing the invocation of sedition charges until the statute is re-examined.
THE CASE OF THE SEDITION LAW
The Supreme Court is examining petitions challenging the constitutionality of the sedition legislation, which has been widely criticised for its alleged abuse by previous regimes to settle political scores.
The Supreme Court had asked the Centre in July 2021 why it was not removing a colonial-era statute used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi.
The British used this legislation to silence Mahatma Gandhi. Do you believe this law is still required?” N V Ramana, India’s Chief Justice, has inquired.
The court has stated that the misuse of the sedition statute, as well as the responsibility of agencies that apply it, are their key concerns. The Supreme Court stated, “There is a considerable threat of misuse.”