E-Paper
‘Shameful…’: Mahua Moitra as solicitor general seeks more time in sedition law plea
Moitra has separately filed a petition pressing for striking down Section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Thursday hit out at solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, for seeking a few more days in the Supreme Court for filing a reply in pleas challenging the colonial-era sedition law. Mehta told the court that the draft response made by lawyers awaits approval by competent authority as the issue is of extreme importance.
Moitra, who separately filed a petition pressing for striking down Section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code, took to Twitter and said, "Shameful how Solicitor General wakes up every morning & comes to court only to stall hearings and buy time for GoI in the most urgent cases. He says he still needs more time to file a reply! Hilarious if it were not so tragic."
Earlier in the day, she also tweeted: "Today’s India has no place for colonial-era Sedition law. My challenge comes up in SC today. GoI has asked for yet another extension. Hope Hon’ble CJI decides matter once & for all in next 2 days."
The Supreme Court said it would hear arguments on May 10 on the legal question of whether the pleas be referred to a larger bench and granted time to the Centre to file its response.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, meanwhile, was told by attorney general KK Venugopal, who was assisting in his personal capacity, that the misuse of the provision like it happened against a Maharashtra MP for reciting ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ has to be stopped by laying down guidelines.
However, there was no need to refer the five-judge bench verdict of the top court in the Kedar Nath case in 1962 to a bench of five or seven judges, the top most law officer said.
The apex court had upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law in the Kedar Nath Singh case.
"Your lordships know what is happening in the country. Yesterday, somebody was detained under this Section just because they wanted to chant ‘Hanuman Chalisa’. So guidelines have to be there, to prevent misuse. Referring the Kedar Nath verdict to a larger bench is not necessary. It is a well-considered judgment,” Venugopal said.
He was referring to MP Navneet Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana being booked for sedition in Maharashtra over the Hanuman Chalisa row.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing as the lead counsel on behalf of the petitioners, said the reference to a larger bench may not be necessary.
Sibal said a three-judge bench can still go into the issue ignoring the 1962 judgement of the five-judge bench in the light of subsequent developments in the fundamental rights jurisprudence.
The bench commenced the hearing and heard arguments on a batch of pleas against the sedition law for some time before adjourning it to Tuesday.
The bench, on April 27, had directed the Centre to file the reply saying it would commence the final hearing in the matter on May 5 and would not entertain any request for adjournment.
Concerned over the enormous misuse of the penal law on sedition, the top court in July last year had asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.
Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by the Editors Guild of India and former Major General SG Vombatkere, challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, the apex court had said its main concern was the "misuse of law" leading to rise in the number of cases.
(With inputs from agencies)
