NEW DELHI: In a sudden change of heart, the Central government on Monday filed a fresh affidavit before the Supreme Court saying it has decided to reconsider its position on Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that deals with sedition law.
Monday’s affidavit comes just a couple of days after it defended 124A in its submission in the court, arguing that instances of the abuse of the law cannot justify the reconsideration of a binding judgment of the Constitution bench.
Doing a complete U-turn, the government on Monday requested the court to await its internal exercise and not invest time in examining 124A, adding the relook will happen before a constitutionally permitted appropriate forum.
The Union home ministry’s affidavit said the government is committed to removing outdated colonial laws while protecting the sovereignty of the nation.
Over 1,500 outdated laws have been scrapped since 2014-15 when the Modi government first came to power, it said.
It also pointed out that over 25,000 compliance burdens that were pain points have already been removed under Narendra Modi’s watch as prime minister.
“Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been de-criminalised. This is an ongoing process. These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mindset and thus have no place in today’s India,” the Centre said.
It added that the government was aware of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition, including concerns of civil liberties and human rights activists.
In the Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case in 1962, a Constitution bench had upheld the sedition law. The Centre in its initial affidavit had said the Kedar Nath verdict came after testing the constitutional validity of 124A from angles.
A three-member bench led by Chief Justice N V Ramana had last week said it would hear arguments on May 10 (Tuesday) on whether pleas challenging the sedition law should be referred to a larger bench for reconsidering.
The direction to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of the sedition law came directly from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the government will "suitably" take into account the views of stakeholders and ensure the sovereignty and integrity of the country is preserved while looking into Section 124A of the IPC, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said on Monday.
Rijiju said he feels that it is a "bold" step taken by the government and was of the view that making laws is the responsibility of the government.
"Since directions have come from the prime minister, since we are doing it (re-examining and re-considering sedition law provisions), we have told the court (Supreme Court) through an affidavit, court may not get involved," he said.
Rijiju told reporters here that Prime Minister Modi expressed his view clearly in favour of the protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving meaning to constitutional freedoms.
The government has also taken various steps to remove outdated laws and has scrapped over 1,500 legislations since 2014-15.
Having considered the concerns related to civil liberties and the government's commitment to maintaining and protecting the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, the prime minister has directed to re-examine and reconsider the provision of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he said.
"The government will reconsider and change the provisions as per the need of the present time. Because there are lots of views coming up," he said on the sedition law.
The government told the Supreme Court on Monday not to invest time in examining the validity of the sedition law as it has decided to go for reconsideration of the provisions by a "competent forum".
The Centre also said it was cognizant of various views and concerns about civil liberties while being committed to protecting the "sovereignty and integrity of this great nation".
Sources in the government said the process may include consultations with the civil society.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra said the legislature should have re-examined the relevance of sedition a "long time ago" and the Centre's stand before the Supreme Court is an important step in rights jurisprudence.
"The fact that the central government is willing to re-look is a very positive step. The Centre's willingness to re-look at the law of sedition and see whether the provision has any relevance in a democracy is a very important step in rights jurisprudence and it is something that the legislature should have done a long time ago," he said.
If the central government takes a "real re-look" from the point of view of rights, it will be helpful in curbing its misuse, the senior lawyer asserted.
The Centre Monday told the apex court that it has decided to go for reconsideration of the provisions by a "competent forum" and is cognizant of various views and concerns about civil liberties while being committed to protecting the "sovereignty and integrity of this great nation".
The Centre, therefore, asked the Supreme Court to not to invest time in examining the validity of sedition law.
Senior advocate Mohit Mathur said that while it falls within the court's domain to test the constitutionality of a legal provision whenever a challenge is raised before it, the Centre may be given an opportunity to examine the issue at its end.
The senior lawyer, however, emphasised that such a reconsideration here has to be "real re-consideration" and not a "dilatory thing".
"The law is dynamic and it has to go with the times. So the court has to examine and it should not be told not to examine. Right or wrong, it has to be decided until and unless the government is saying that it is taking some kind of a decision which could even go in the direction of repealing that provision," he said.
Advocate Sherbir Panag, a financial crimes lawyer, called the Centre's stand a "step worth being applauded" as he claimed that it is better if the law of sedition is dealt through the "legislative process" in a time-bound manner.
"We can do a lot of whataboutery but the point is that no government in India, since independence, has come out in glory so far as sedition is concerned. Every government has used it to different degrees and that the government is willing to re-look at it is a step worth being applauded. And it is better if it goes through the legislative process -- whether it is to strike it down or modify or build in statutory safeguards. That all is yet to come. But the government saying allow us to re-look at it and hopefully they will do it in a time-bound manner is something that should be applauded," he said.
The Supreme Court has been hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the law on sedition which has been under intense public scrutiny for its alleged misuse to settle political scores by various governments.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, in an affidavit, referred to the views of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on shedding colonial baggage and said he has been in favour of the protection of civil liberties and respect of human rights, and in that spirit, over 1,500 outdated laws and over 25,000 compliance burdens have been scrapped.
It said the prime minister has said that India, as a nation, has to work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility which includes outdated laws and practices.
In another written submission, filed earlier, the Centre defended the penal law and the 1962 verdict of a constitution bench upholding its validity, saying they have withstood "the test of time" about six decades and the instances of its abuse would never be a justification of reconsideration.
The top court, in 1962, upheld the validity of the sedition law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse.
"Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine," reads section 124A (sedition) of the IPC.
Penal provisions
The affidavit said there is general agreement about the need for statutory provisions to deal with serious offences of a divisive nature. “Penal provision for such purposes is generally accepted by all in legitimate state interest.”
(With PTI Inputs)