New Delhi, April 27 (Bureau) The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central government to file its counter by the end of this week to a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of sedition in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A Bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana posted the petitions for final hearing on May 5. It clarified that no adjournment will be granted that day. The Central government sought more time to file its response to petitions demanding striking down of Section 124-A (sedition law). “The Union of India has to file its counter by the end of this week. The matter to be taken up on May 5 for final disposal of the case,” the Bench said. The petitions stated that uncertain 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, an 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, one of the petitioners, told 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 Foundation said.
The Foundation said Section 124-A IPC casts such a wide net on the speech and writing of media professionals that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it just as any serious opinion against governmental measures and actions were presumed anti-government (or anti-national, to use the prevalent street slang) and seditious by the public officials. “In fact any valid criticism or opinion of any legislation, policy or measures taken by the government, is interpreted to mean ‘disaffection towards the government established by law’,” the FMP said. The term ‘disaffection towards the government established by law’ is vague, ambiguous, capable of being interpreted subjectively and is regularly misused as a tool to persecute political dissent, it said. Therefore, Section 124-A was not in consonance with the principles of law pronounced in various judgments of the Supreme Court and sought appropriate direction and orders in the issue.