Equivalent Citation: (2022) 7 SCC 433
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 682 of 2021
Date of the judgement: 11th May 2022
Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli
Section involved: Section 124A of the IPC, Article 19[1](a) of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: S.G. Vombatkere
Respondent: Union of India
S.G. Vombatkere, a retired Army General filed a Writ Petition before the supreme court of India along with a number of petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860). The 1898 Sedition Law is discussed in several places in Section 124A. Any verbal or visual expression that incites animosity, disdain, or disenchantment with the government in power at the moment is illegal under this law. It includes the possibility of a life sentence without the possibility of a fine, or a three-year sentence with the possibility of a fine. The petitioners in the aforementioned case contended that the law of sedition is a tool of repression of dissent and that it infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution by restricting the rightful criticism of the government and undermining democratic values. It was also argued that because the clause is ambiguous, the state has tremendous authority over it and frequently abuses it.
ISSUE RAISED
- Is Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression violated by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the statute of sedition?
- Is the law of sedition out of date and incompatible with current values because it is a vestige of the colonial era?
- Is it possible for the government to abuse the sedition statute, giving them the unjustified ability to suppress dissent and limit criticism of the government?
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONERS
- The law of sedition violates the fundamental right of free speech and expression by restricting even legitimate condemnation of the government by individuals.
- Section 124A is a vast provision and uses ambiguous language giving room to the authorities to misuse it and curtail people from expressing their genuine views about the government set up by law.
- It was claimed that the law is a colonial era provision which was borrowed by the Britishers (UK). And it does not conform with the modern. This law was used to suppress revolutionary movements at the time. And it does not conform with the modern democratic principles and is a serious threat to the structure of democracy.
- The law of sedition needs to be repealed since it infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights and gives the government the arbitrary authority to suppress any opposition.
- In the name of India’s sovereignty and integrity as well as other legitimate constraints listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, Article 124A regulates free speech. However, this provision is wildly abused, and frequently the limitations imposed do not adhere to legitimate constraints.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
- Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, contended on behalf of the Union of India that upholding the nation’s security, sovereignty, and public order depends on the legislation against sedition. Additionally, it complies with democratic norms.
- Enforcing the law is necessary to preserve the integrity of the country and put an end to any actions that incite dissatisfaction with the government or pose a danger to its power.
- The purpose of the law of sedition, as stated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, is to impose reasonable limitations on the right to free speech and expression.
- The respondent further argued that the government is aware of potential unintentional legal abuse. It usually results in the loss of liberty of speech.
RATIONALE
In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has given extensive guidelines respecting Section 124A, which are in effect till further notice. The following are these instructions:
- Continuation of the Interim Order: The original directive makes clear that the interim order would remain in effect until further orders are issued by the Supreme Court.
- Limitation on New First Information Reports (FIRs) and Coercive Measures: Throughout the ongoing reconsideration, the Central and state governments have been specifically directed by the Court not to launch any new FIRs, continue any ongoing investigations, or use any coercive measures under Section 124A.
- Recourse for New Sedition Cases: If a new sedition case arises, the impacted party is entitled to petition the court for redress. The subordinate courts are assigned the responsibility of evaluating relief claims in accordance with the Union of India’s rulings and the current order.
- Abeyance of Pending Cases: All Section 124A-related trials, appeals, and proceedings that are now pending must be put on hold. If the court determines that the accused won’t be affected, it may nevertheless continue to adjudicate other parts.
- Advisory to Central and State Governments: The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to advise both state governments and Union territories to refrain from initiating new cases under Section 124A. This precautionary measure aims to prevent misuse and misapplications of the provision.
- Continued Validity of Directions: These directions will remain in force until further developments in this matter.
- Relief for Detained Individuals: During the order dictation, the Chief Justice of India highlighted that individuals already booked under Section 124A and detained can seek relief by approaching the relevant courts.
The aftermath of the supreme court’s decision;
In Aman Chopra v. the State of Rajasthan (2022)5, the Rajasthan High Court directed the state police to cease investigating claims made against Aman Chopra under Section 124A of the IPC. The Court issued these directives on the same day that the SC passed an interim order suspending the previously mentioned section.
DEFECTS IN LAW
The Indian Penal Code’s Section 124A, which defines sedition, uses imprecise and unclear language. Terms like “hatred,” “contempt,” and “disaffection” are ambiguous, which leaves room for individual interpretations and abuse by law enforcement. The sedition statute is applied inconsistently in part because of this lack of clarity. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which is at odds with the sedition statute as it currently stands. Citizens’ constitutional rights are violated by the expansive interpretation of sedition, which criminalizes political criticism and disaffection with the government.
According to the Tilak case (1897), sedition can incite dissatisfaction with the government without necessarily sparking violence or insurrection. But in the 1942 Majumdar case, the accused was found not guilty since it was highlighted that sedition necessitates a propensity to instigate violence or disruption.
The contradictions are exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision-making in the Kedarnath case. The Court maintained the sedition law’s validity but limited its scope to actions that incite violence. The Court takes a contradictory stand in trying to uphold sedition even after admitting it was left out of the draft Constitution and raising doubts about its seriousness.
Global organizations, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee, have voiced apprehensions regarding the misapplication of sedition laws and suggested their abolition or modification to conform to global human rights standards. This discrepancy draws attention to the contradictions between Indian law on sedition and international norms.
INFERENCE
The law of sedition has been a frequent topic of discussion in recent years. In recent years, a number of cases involving Section 124A have raised controversy. which further prompted the filing of other petitions against the government’s abuse of the clause. “Whoever 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 may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added,” according to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1980).
Basically, it makes illegal any deed or speech that could encourage rebellion or dissatisfaction with the legally established government. When the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1860, the law of sedition—which Thomas Macaulay had initially designed in 1837—was further removed. It was introduced through an amendment in 1870 and included in section 124A of the IPC.
The ruling rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India is essential for preserving both the fundamental principles of Indian democracy and the rights of citizens to free speech and expression. It is undoubtedly a major step forward in the fight for a robust legal system that defends peoples’ fundamental rights. It is hoped that the government would make the required improvements to the current sedition laws in order to strike a much-needed balance between preserving national integrity and defending the freedom of individuals to free speech and expression.
References
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Chapter VI, 1860 (India).
Indian Constitution, Art. 19 cl. 1(a).
Akash Chopra v. State of Rajasthan, 2022
Queen Empress V. Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Keshav Mahadev Bal, 1897
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar on 20 January, 1962
VIDUSHI RAJ
AMITY UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR