Those already facing sedition charges can approach courts for bail, the Supreme Court said
All pending trials, appeals, proceedings relating to IPC Section 124A be kept in abeyance: CJI bench
New Delhi: Stating that there is a “requirement to balance… security interests and integrity of the State… and the civil liberties of citizens” and taking into account the “clear stand” of the Centre, the Supreme Court Wednesday put on hold trial in all sedition cases pending before courts across the country until the government completes its promised exercise “to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code” dealing with the offence of sedition.
“All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused,” the bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said in an interim order.
The bench said “we hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration”.
However, indicating that there is no blanket stay on registration of fresh FIRs, the bench said “if any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief” and “Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India”Besides, it allowed the Centre “to issue the Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC”.
The “Directive” placed before the court states that “the interpretation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Vinod Dua v. Union of India… ought to be scrupulously followed and adhered to” and “an FIR involving Section 124A will be registered only if an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police is satisfied and records his satisfaction in writing that the offence alleged involves Section 124A as analysed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the captioned judgment”.
In June 2021, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while quashing the charge of sedition against journalist Vinod Dua, had further elucidated on the 1962 Constitution Bench ruling in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and said “only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence are rendered penal”.
In the Kedar Nath Singh judgment, the Supreme Court, while upholding Section 124A, had attempted to prevent its misuse by laying down what amounts to sedition and what does not.
Responding to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A, the Centre told the bench earlier this week that it is “fully cognizant of the various views” on the subject and “has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A”. It urged the bench to defer the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law until such exercise is carried out “before an appropriate forum”. It also urged the court to defer the hearing until the time the exercise is completed.
