'Was meant to suppress freedom movement': SC asks Centre why it's not getting rid of sedition law

The effect of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code is that instead of one tree, the entire forest gets cut, the CJI commented, questioning the Centre whether there is any necessity of the provision after 73 years of Independence.

Terming sedition law "colonial', the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the misuse of the law and asked the Centre why it has not got rid of the law, which was originally meant to "suppress freedom movement" at a time when several old laws have been repealed.

The sedition law was meant to suppress the freedom movement and was used by the Britishers to silence Mahatma Gandhi and others, the Supreme Court noted.

A bench headed by Chief justice N V Ramana said the main concern was about the "misuse of law". The bench was hearing a plea by former army officer Major-General S G Vombatkere (Retd) who challenged the Constitutional validity of section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC on grounds that it causes a "chilling effect" on speech. The sedition law also curbs freedom of speech, the plea said.

The sedition law was meant to suppress the freedom movement and was used by the Britishers to silence Mahatma Gandhi and others, the court noted to which attorney general KK Venugopal said some guidelines may be laid down to curb misuse of sedition law.

"If we go see history of charging of this section, the enormous power of this section can be compared to a carpenter being a saw to make an item, who uses it to cut the entire forest instead of a tree. That's the effect of this provision," the CJI said. He also clarified that he is not blaming any government for the misuse of the provision.

According to Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law in [India] shall be punished with [im­prisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with impris­onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

The offence is not bailable. In 1962, the Supreme Court had upheld the law in Kedar Nath Yadav versus the State of Bihar.

The Supreme Court is hearing a clutch of applications challenging the constitutional validity of this IPC section. But what makes this plea by the Army veteran different from others is that it prays to quash all complaints under this law. The petition said when the law was upheld in 1962, the definition of fundamental rights was different. Now it needs a relook, the petitioner said.