Plea seeks stay on imposition of sedition law till SC decides to refer case to larger Bench
India Today
A plea was filed in Supreme Court on Tuesday stating that till the court decides to refer the case relating to the validity of the sedition law to a Constitution bench of five or more judges, its operation should be stalled.
A plea was filed in Supreme Court on Tuesday stating that till the court decides to refer the case relating to the validity of the sedition law to a Constitution bench of five or more judges, its operation should be stalled.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana is likely to hear the case on Tuesday.
Petitioner SG Vombatkere, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, in his plea stated: "In the larger public interest and in the interest that speech should not be chilled in a free democratic republic like India, it is necessary that the operation of the impugned provision be stayed forthwith and that any pending proceedings, including pending investigations if any be stayed as an interim measure, particularly in the event that this Hon’ble Court decides to refer to a larger Bench."
The petition further states, "The Petitioner is aware that a legislative provision is usually not stayed by this Court unless manifest unconstitutionality is shown."
"It is pertinent to point out that even when Kedar Nath Singh was decided in 1962, the Impugned Provision was a non-cognisable one under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 which was in force at the time and no FIR could be registered in respect solely of the same. However, it was later made cognizable after the CrPC, 1973 came into force and since then the administration of the law in part has come within the powers of the police which, the Petitioner submits has contributed to the rampant abuse of the Impugned Provision to chill speech and criminalise legitimate dissent," the plea stated,” the petition stated.
The petitioner also cited the judgments on the development of constitutional law and the interplay between articles 14,19, and 21.
The petitioner in his written argument said: "This Hon’ble Court can decide the question of ultra vires of Section 124A unconstrained by the holding in Kedar Nath Singh which was a pronouncement on a very limited point at a different jurisprudential era — the entire basis of which has completely been taken away by the development of the law."
