.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court has referred to a bench of at least five-judges, the petitions challenging the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code).
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra mentioned that there was an urgent need to refer the matter to a larger bench as the provision was upheld by a five-judge bench in the 1962 judgment Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar.
The Apex Court said that a smaller bench may not be appropriate for it to doubt or overrule the Kedar Nath judgement.
The Kedar Nath case was decided on the basis of narrow understanding of the fundamental rights, which was prevalent then, it observed.
The bench further noted that Kedar Nath examined the issue only from the aspect of Article 19, as per the understanding then that the fundamental rights operate in distinct silos.
The top court added that later, this understanding of law changed in view of subsequent judgments which held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 operate in harmony.
The bench also turned down the Central Government’s request to defer the hearing due to introduction of a new bill in Parliament to replace the Indian Penal Code.
The Apex Court clarified that even if the new Bill became a law, the past cases under Section 124A IPC will not be affected as the new penal law can only apply prospectively.
The top court stated in its order that the new law will not obviate the need for a constitutional adjudication on the validity of the provision.
The bench noted in the order that the right way was to direct the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider that the batch of cases can be heard by a bench of at least 5 judges.
It further directed the Registry to place the papers before the CJI so that an appropriate decision can be taken on an administrative side to form a bench of at least 5 judges.