Citation: (2022) 7 SCC 433.
Case no.: Writ Petition (C) No. 682 of 2021.
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Date of Judgement: 11 May 2022.
Bench: Hon’ble CJI N. V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli.
Petitioner: S. G. Vombatkere.
Respondent: Union of India.
In a significant legal development, retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere, along with several other petitioners, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. This particular section, which originated in 1898, deals with the criminalization of sedition-targeting spoken or visible expressions that may incite hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the existing government. The essence of the petition lies in the claim that Section 124A, colloquially known as the sedition law, is used as a tool to suppress dissent, thereby violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression which contained in Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The argument was that this provision, due to its Ambiguous language, confers excessive powers on the state, leading to frequent misuse. The legal saga unfolds in July 2021 with the preliminary hearing scheduled to be held before a two-judge bench of Justices U.U. Lalit and Ajay Rastogi. The petitioners were directed to submit a copy of the writ petition to the Attorney General of India. After this the next hearing was scheduled for October 2021. Moving forward, in April 2022, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government asking it to respond to the petition. The Solicitor General of India requested additional time to file a counter affidavit, a plea which was granted by the court. Notably, a written submission was submitted on behalf of the Union of India by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on May 7. Finally, an affidavit was officially filed by the government on 9 May. Ultimately, after due deliberations, the apex court delivered its verdict on May 11, 2022, marking a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of sedition laws in India.
Issues Raised
The legal proceedings relating to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code have brought up important issues for consideration:
1.The primary issue focuses on whether Section 124A, the sedition law, violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
2. An important question has been raised regarding the relevance and conformity of the sedition law with modern democratic principles. The controversy is whether this colonial-era provision is in line with contemporary values and legal standards.
3. Another important issue is whether the sedition law can be misused by authorities, giving them arbitrary powers to suppress dissent and prevent legitimate criticism of the government. Is. This raises questions about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual liberty.
Contentions by the Petitioner
1. The petitioner argues that the sedition law violates the fundamental right to free speech and expression, which prevents individuals from legitimately criticizing the government.
2.The broad and Ambiguous language of Section 124A provides excessive discretion to officials, potentially leading to abuse and suppression of genuine opinion about the government.
3.The contention is that the sedition law, borrowed from colonial-era British law, lacks coherence with modern democratic principles. Originally used to crush revolutionary movements, it is considered outdated and a threat to democratic structures.
4.The petitioner says that this law should be repealed as it provides arbitrary powers to the Central Government, violates the fundamental rights of citizens and stifles dissent against the present government.
5.While Article 124A aims to protect sovereignty and integrity, the petitioner argues that the law often misuses the restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This divergence raises concerns about the compatibility of the imposed sanctions with democratic principles.
Contentions by the Respondent
1.The respondent, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argues that the law of sedition plays an important role in national security, sovereignty and maintaining public order. It is argued that the law is consistent with democratic principles and necessary to maintain the stability of the country.
2.The defendant emphasizes that the sedition law is necessary to protect the integrity of the nation and to prevent activities that may incite disaffection against the Government or the right to rule.
3.It is claimed that the law of sedition is conceived in the Constitution for the purpose of imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
4.The defendant acknowledges the potential for abuse of the sedition law, which is not intended. The Government expresses awareness of the need to balance the objectives of the law with the protection of individuals’ freedom of expression, emphasizing its commitment to protecting civil liberties and human rights.
5.According to the defendant’s argument, the government recognizes and respects citizens’ civil liberties and human rights. As a result, a commitment has been made to thoroughly examine the provisions of Section 124A, reflecting a desire to address concerns and ensure a balance between national interests and individual freedoms.
Rationale
The case of SG Vombatkere vs Union of India appears to be rooted in a fundamental quest to protect constitutional rights and address potential loopholes in the application of the law of sedition. The central argument probably revolves around the protection of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner may argue that the broad and vague language of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code facilitates arbitrary interpretation, leading to potential abuse and chilling impact on legitimate dissent. Additionally, this case may highlight the old colonial era origins of sedition law, advocating its alignment with contemporary democratic principles. Another important aspect could include a petition to prevent misuse of the law by authorities, stressing the need for clear guidelines to strike a balance between national security concerns and the protection of individual liberty.
In short, this case appears to be a call for a nuanced examination of sedition law, seeking reforms that are in line with constitutional guarantees and evolving social norms.
Defects of law
In this case, the flaws in the law of sedition would have been highlighted through various arguments. An obvious drawback may be the excessive breadth and vagueness inherent in the language of Section 124A, which allows subjective interpretations that may compromise the right to dissent. Critics may argue that the law, as currently drafted, has a deterrent impact on freedom of expression by preventing individuals from expressing legitimate criticism against the government. Another significant drawback may revolve around the potential for abuse by authorities, with the broad powers granted under the sedition law enabling selective enforcement and repression of dissent. The law’s colonial-era legacy could be raised as a relevant flaw, considering it outdated and inconsistent with modern democratic principles. If the petitioner alleges violation of fundamental rights, it would be a fundamental flaw, highlighting the need to more closely link the law with constitutional guarantees.
In short, this case would have drawn attention to these flaws, thereby urging the Court to reconsider and reform the sedition law to ensure a delicate balance between national security concerns and the protection of individual liberty.
Inference
The law of sedition contained in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has emerged as a focal point of constant debate in recent times due to the increase in controversies and related legal cases. This increased scrutiny has prompted several petitions to be filed outlining concerns about possible misuse of Section 124A by the authorities.
According to section 124A of the IPC (Act 45 of 1980), any person who, by words, oral or written, signals, visible representation or otherwise, attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards, a duly established Government. India deserves punishment. The penalties prescribed range from life imprisonment, with the possibility of additional fine, to imprisonment of up to three years and a possible fine.
Essentially, this provision criminalizes acts or expressions that may lawfully incite rebellion or disaffection against the government. While originally drafted by Thomas Macaulay in 1837, the law of treason underwent changes over time. Initially removed with the introduction of the Indian Penal Code in 1860, it was later re-introduced through an amendment in 1870 and included under section 124A.
The evolving landscape of debates and legal challenges around the sedition law reflects a nuanced examination of its implications in contemporary society, raising questions about the balance between freedom of expression, national security and individual rights, and the potential for abuse by authorities.
The repeal of the sedition law in 1967 in the United Kingdom, its country of origin, serves as a compelling argument for those advocating its abolition in India. Persistent misuse of this law to stifle freedom of expression and criticism of the government has led to calls for reform. While acknowledging the imperative to protect the integrity and security of the country, concerns arise about the erosion of fundamental rights due to persistent misuse of the law.
In the case of S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India the judgement is given by the Supreme Court of India, has emerged as an important milestone in upholding the freedom of speech and expression of citizens, an essential component of Indian democracy. This decision marks an important progress towards strengthening a strong legal framework protecting individual rights. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the sedition law, as well as reform or amendment to align it with its original intent. It is paramount to strike a delicate balance between protecting the integrity of the nation and preserving the rights of individuals to free speech and expression. Expectations rest on the government to initiate the necessary amendments, promote a legal landscape that is consistent with the core values of democracy and respects individual freedoms.