Extraordinary: Lawyers on apex court’s sedition order

By Rithu Dravid & Rachana Ramesh | NT

Bengaluru: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark order, restraining the Centre and States from registering First Information Reports (FIRs), continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The clause, known as sedition law, allows arrest without a warrant if a person is accused of antigovernment activities. It was originally used to curb political dissent against the British during the Independent movement and it was charged against freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

In this context, News Trail spoke to prominent advocates in Karnataka.

Ravi Varma Kumar, Former Advocate General of Karnataka
“This is an extraordinary step by the Supreme Court after observing gross abuse of the Section 124-A. The Centre and State governments have been using this law to harass citizens who criticise their wrong policies. The apex court took this step because it was an archaic law and a legacy of British rule. Therefore, a law which was used against freedom fighters cannot be allowed to continue in free India 71 years after the Constitution came into force and 75 years after the independence.”

Sashi Kiran Shetty, Senior Advocate
“We should welcome the Supreme Court’s interim order whereby all proceedings under the colonial (and outdated) law of sedition will be kept in abeyance, at least until the next hearing scheduled for July 2022. It will probably also be difficult to start fresh proceedings in light of this order, and individuals arrested in sedition cases can seek bail. I do hope that all such proceedings are disposed expeditiously since personal liberty is presently being deprived under a law that the central government has unequivocally conceded needs re-examination and reconsideration. For context, this is a law which was often used during colonial rule to muzzle freedom fighters and founding fathers of the nation. The powers that be have continued to keep this law on the books even though it has no place in a constitutional democracy which guarantees the right to the freedom of speech and expression. Data shows that 96% of sedition cases filed against Indians for criticising the government or politicians over the last decade were registered after 2014. The states carry the distinction of weaponising in fact the governments has been known to pursue cases against those who protested the CAA, posted social media messages that are deemed “anti-national” and even journalists and student activists that only sought to do their jobs without any incitement to violence. Going forward, it remains to be seen whether this law will be scrapped or just modified.”

A P Ranganatha, Former President, Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru
“The Supreme Court has taken a historic decision by keeping the sedition clause in abeyance. It is not a final decision. This has been misused for many years, especially by the current government at the Centre.”

Mohammed Tahir, Advocate & activist
“The Supreme Court is supposed to strike down this law without seeking any further response from the Centre. The law has been so abused, misinterpreted and used to target minority communities as well as journalists by the government. The Supreme Court must have taken this step long back. Because of the delay of this order, the government was given a number of opportunities to abuse the process of law and target minorities, activists and journalists. The definition we read of the sedition law has no place in a democratic society because it directly confronts Article19 of the Constitution. Today’s decision is a step towards the scrapping of the sedition law.”

Akmal Rizvi, Advocate & activist
“What the court has said is that until it takes a final decision, no fresh cases can be registered. It has said that even if it is registered, people can go and apply for bail. It is all a little ambiguous. The scenario would be much better if the court-mandated that there be no registration of cases under the current law. There is no direction on whether the bail should be considered keeping in view Section 124. Whether it must be liberally considered is also not specified.”