An intervention application has been filed before the Supreme Court in the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, which penalises the crime of ‘sedition’.
The application has been filed by the Foundation of Media Professionals through Advocate Rahul Bhatia.
According to the application, “the tendency of the British to ensure complete allegiance and compliance of the Indian citizens not only in action but also in thought, is blatantly evident from the evolution of law on sedition. It is relevant to note, however, that the Indian courts have largely crusaded against regarding every unpleasant word as ‘actionable’, championing the cause of the media.”
It is submitted that any valid criticism or opinion of any Legislation, policy or measures taken by the Government is interpreted to mean ‘disaffection towards the Government established by law’. The term ‘disaffection towards the Government established by law’ is vague, ambiguous, capable of being interpreted subjectively and is regularly misused as a tool to persecute political dissent.
It stated that insertion of Section 124A in the IPC by way of an amendment in 1870 was “conditioned on preserving freedom of speech and not to endanger it”. The application refers to a report released by Free Speech Collective entitled “Behind Bars- Arrest and Detention of Journalists in India,” which reveals that 67 cases have been lodged against journalists in 2020.
The applicant argued that in Independent India, Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution can only be restricted under the subject matters mentioned in Article 19 (2), namely sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
It is alleged that the imposition of Section 124-A IPC over journalists, who are merely doing their jobs, is arbitrary, excessive and completely disproportionate.
Reliance was made on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, which upheld the law of sedition on a “pedantic approach” that citizens require some hand-holding to get used to the idea of a democratic nation needs to re-looked. The application also cited the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, wherein while deliberating on the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Top Court of the country referred to the test of ‘chilling effect’.
Also Read: Beware of Attacking Advocates
It is pointed out that even the Constituent Assembly was unanimous in having the word ‘sedition’ deleted from the draft Constitution.
The Original Plea was heard yesterday by a bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi. The matter has been adjourned to July 27, to enable the Central Government and the Attorney General to file their reply.
The writ petitions were jointly filed before the Supreme Court by two journalists – Kirechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiyalal Shukla from Manipur and Chhattisgarh, respectively. On April 30, the apex court had agreed to examine the validity of the sedition law and issued notice to the Central Government, as well as the Attorney General for India.