New Delhi, May 8 (FN Agency) The central government on Saturday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on constitutional validity of sedition law, maintaining that no reconsideration needed to review the law. “The sedition law needs no reconsideration. No reference, therefore, would be necessary nor can three Judge Bench once again examine constitutional validity of very same provision,” the affidavit filled by Central government read. The Central government has told the Supreme Court that the 1962 verdict of the top court in Kedar Nath Singh against State of Bihar upholding validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on sedition is binding on a 3-judge bench. The Kedar Nath Singh judgment of the Supreme Court which upheld the validity of Section 124A was rendered by a 5-judge Constitution bench, and therefore, a 3- judge bench cannot hear the legal challenge to Constitutionality of Section 124A, the Centre told the Supreme Court through an affidavit. The affidavit further stated that Kedar Nath Singh judgement has stood the test of time and applied till date in tune with modern constitutional principles and only a bench of co-equal strength of Kedar Nath Singh can pose any doubts on the verdict. Thus, for reconsideration of Kedar Nath Singh, the matter will have to be referred to a bench of 5-judges or more, it said.
The government said that individual instances of misuse of provision cannot be a ground for reconsideration of Kedar Nath Singh. The Supreme Court in its order had in May first week asked the Centre and other respective parties, to file its counter affidavit on merit by Monday, fixed the matter for further hearing to May 10, Tuesday, at 2pm on the point of referring the sedition cases to a larger bench of five bench or seven judges. “Both sides have to file their written submissions by Saturday, while the Centre needs to file its counter affidavit on merit by Monday,” the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana had said in its last hearing. Senior lawyer, Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the Petitioners, had told the Supreme Court that every other day someone is being sent to jail due to this law and it is contrary to free India. Your Lordships if didn’t agree with me, Your Lordships can refer it to 7 judges bench, Sibal told the Apex Court and added that “the law pertaining to 124-A is unconstitutional”.
The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, senior lawyer appearing for the Central government had said that our response would not have a bearing on what the petitioners argue, it would be a much more holistic view. The SG Mehta had told the Supreme Court that the draft response on sedition law has been prepared by lawyers and it needed to be approved by competent authority before filing and requested the court to adjourn the hearing. The Supreme Court had said that it will hear the matter on May 10, as to whether the petitions challenging the constitutionality of sedition be referred to a larger bench for reconsidering the earlier 5 judge bench verdict in Kedar Nath Singh against State Of Bihar judgment or not. The SG Mehta told the Supreme Court bench, headed by the CJI Ramana that “I am conscious that we (the Central government) we were directed to file a reply in the sedition issue, and there were two reasons, why we didn’t file the reply in the case.” “We are waiting for an approval of the competent authority in the case, that’s why this delay,” the SG Mehta told the three-judge bench, led by CJI. Considering nature of the matter and repercussions of the matter, the lordship may consider for hearing the matter for a date this court thinks fit, the SG Mehta argued before the Supreme Court.
The batch of petitions filed before before Supreme Court stated that uncertain measure of what constitutes seditious speech sparked a tussle between free speech and the law on sedition, which has been underway since the colonial era. In 1898, explanation was inserted to the provision to clarify that fair criticism of the government shall not amount to sedition. The observations made by the Select Committee while inserting such provisions give an insight into the displeasure of the British in limiting the scope of the provision, which limited their powers to curtail rebellion” the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP), one of the petitioners in the sedition case, said, in its petition filed before the Supreme Court. “It is relevant to note, however, that the Indian courts have largely crusaded against regarding every unpleasant word as ‘actionable’, championing the cause of the media. However, with the evolution of the internet-dependent society, it has become relevant more than ever, to scrutinize laws on sedition, particularly as such laws are instruments of the Government,” the FMP said in its petition filed before the Supreme Court. It is expected that the Supreme Court will hear the matter on May 10.