NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the sedition law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to a five-judge bench to decide if its 1962 decision of upholding the constitutionality of Section 124A in the Kedar Nath Singh case requires reconsideration.
Turning down the Centre’s request to await Parliament’s decision on the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, (BNSB) which is to replace the IPC, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud observed that the new law would have “prospective application” and govern the cases filed after it is brought into effect.
While the BNSB dropped Section 124A, it introduced Section 150 which deals with sedition though it does not use the word as such. It describes the offence as any act that endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Since the Kedar Nath verdict came from a five-judge bench, a three-judge bench can’t reverse it, the CJI reasoned. In any case, the Centre is not planning to delete the provision but have it in a new form, he added. “There is no way we can avoid judging the constitutionality of the Section 124A,” he said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani told the bench that a substantive hearing on the pleas would be untimely as the bill was pending consideration before the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “There is a new section in BBSB. Can it not wait (for Parliament vetting)? The earlier government had an opportunity to say it was a draconian law but they missed it.”
Seeking reference of the pleas to a five-judge bench, the petitioners, appearing through senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said the enactment of the new law would not obviate the need to adjudicate upon the constitutionality of the existing law.