NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday listed the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for final disposal without any adjournment on May 5.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the central government sought some time for filing the counter affidavit in the main matter. The top court granted four days time for it.
The top court will be hearing pleas by the Editors Guild of India, former army officer Major General SG Vombatkere and several others that have challenged this provision in the IPC.
Last year in July, the top court had agreed to examine the pleas and had asked the central government why it is not repealing the provision that was used to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.
The plea, filed on behalf of Major-General SG Vombatkere (retd.), said that Section 124A of the IPC is ultra vires Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
"… statute criminalizing expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of 'disaffection towards government' etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible 'chilling effect' on speech," the plea had contended.
In April 2021, another bench headed by Justice UU Lalit had issued notice on the pleas filed by two journalists -- Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively -- before the top court to declare the provision unconstitutional.
The petition by the journalists had said that Section 124-A fails to meet the international standard of ‘legality’ which India is under obligation to meet as a party to the ICCPR, and the terms ‘intention’ and ‘tendency’ in the interpretation of Section 124-A are so subjective that the law is uncertain and unascertainable and are an invitation to abuse by authorities.
The plea by the journalists had alleged that Section 124-A is unnecessary to protect the interests of state security and public disorder, and is duplicated by more recent legislation which directly and sufficiently prevents and deals with the mischief of public disorder and public violence.