Decided on-: 11 May 2022
Bench-: Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli
FACTS
Retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere and others challenged the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, dating back to 1898, which criminalizes sedition. The petition argued that it stifles dissent, violating the right to freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). Allegations included restricting legitimate criticism and granting excessive state powers due to vagueness.
The initial hearing occurred in July 2021 before a two-judge bench. The petitioner provided a copy to the Attorney General, and the next hearing was set for October 2021. In April 2022, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government. The Solicitor General sought more time for a counter-affidavit, granted by the court. On May 7th, a written submission was filed, followed by a government affidavit on May 9th. The court delivered its judgment on May 11, 2022.
ISSUES
1. Constitutionality Challenge: Does Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, commonly known as the sedition law, violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
2. Relevance of Colonial-Era Provision: Is the law of sedition, originating from the colonial era, outdated and inconsistent with contemporary principles and values?
3. Potential for Misuse: Does the sedition law grant authorities arbitrary powers, making it prone to misuse and facilitating the suppression of dissent and curtailment of government criticism?
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India acknowledged the inadvertent misuse of the sedition law (Section 124A) and commended the Government's commitment to reassess its provisions. Exercising its judicial authority, the court suspended the law of sedition until further notice. The court directed the Government to refrain from filing any sedition cases during this scrutiny period. Parties were granted the freedom to approach the court if a new sedition case was initiated, and the judgment applied to all pending cases, including appeals, trials, and proceedings.
Recognizing the widespread misuse impacting free speech and expression, the court called for a constitutional analysis of Section 124A, emphasizing reforms to align it with democratic ideals and the criteria of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the delicate balance required between national integrity/security and citizens' rights, calling for a thorough review and rectification of the colonial-era sedition law to align with contemporary democratic concepts.
Commentaires