Welcome stay on sedition law, now send it to the shredder
The cat-and-mouse game around the validity of the 152-year-old sedition law took a decisive turn on Wednesday when a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana put its operation on hold. Just the other day, the Bench had shown great urgency in dealing with the matter when it shooed off other litigants who complained that their petitions challenging IPC Section 124A had not been clubbed for joint hearing, by wondering whether their intention was to delay its judicial assessment. That Justice Ramana does not have too much time - he is due to retire on August 26 - must have weighed on the judicial minds when the Bench sought to expedite the hearing. The Centre first defended the law arguing that the 1962 Constitution Bench judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case was sound, but quickly did a U-turn after realising that the judicial axe was aimed and ready. It then sought to take the high moral ground saying it was aware of the abuse of 124A and the discourse in civil society against it, adding it wanted to put in place a mechanism to review the law at appropriate constitutionally mandated forums. By urging the Bench not to exercise its mind till the Centre completes its review, it sought to steal the judicial thunder and buy time. The Bench apparently saw through the game and produced a stunner by putting the law in abeyance till the Centre takes its call. If anything, Justice Ramana can consider the initial steps leading to its dismantling as his legacy.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that as many as 13,000 people were in jail at present with 124A charges against them. There is empirical evidence to show that over 60% of those individuals were implicated under that law after the BJP came to power at the Centre. In other words, its abuse happened right under the gaze of the ruling party at the Centre. While staying 124A, the Bench gave liberty to its victims to seek judicial relief, thus opening for them a window of opportunity.
The obnoxious law was meant to serve a despotic ruler, the British Raj. It has no place in a rules-based democracy and deserves to be sent to the shredder.