'Anachronistic, Repressive': PUCL Moves Supreme Court Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Offence Of Sedition U/S 124A IPC https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569 Akshita Saxena 16 July 2021
it is submitted that Sedition is a "political crime", originally enacted to prevent political uprisings against the Crown and to control the British colonies. It is argued that a law of such "repressive" character, has no place in independent India.
The plea stated that terms like 'disaffection' 'disloyalty' 'disapprobation' etc. used to define Sedition are vague and therefore make the provision void. In fact, the Petitioner contends, the Kedar Nath judgment admits that if literal meaning to the words of Section 124A are given de hors what was said in the Judicial Committee, the Section will be beyond the limits of Art.19(2)...
Another important aspect highlighted in the plea is that when Section 124A was considered in Kedar Nath case, the offence was treated as non-cognizable offence under CrPC and an arrest could only be made on warrant issued by Magistrate. However, when CrPC was amended in 1973 and the 1898 Code was repealed, the offence of sedition became cognizable.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569 epealed, the offence of sedition became cognizable. Consequently, the severity of the offence has drastically increased since 1973 leaving police with wide discretionary powers to arrest. The charge under sedition has been widely abused as it is of political nature,"
Ex-minister Arun Shourie moves SC against sedition law July 15, 2021 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ex-minister-arun-shourie-moves-sc-against-sedition-law-7406660/
Arun Shourie's petition claimed that "the definition of sedition (Section 124-A of IPC) was vague and incapable of accurate appreciation by the common citizen and the law enforcement agencies/ police".
Is It Still Necessary To Continue Sedition Law, Which Was Used By British To Suppress Our Freedom Movement, Even After 75 Yrs Of Independence: CJI Ramaana To Centre
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569
Sedition Law: How 'Colonial' Era Rule Used Against Gandhi, Tilak Works in India and in These 10 Countries https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/sedition-law-how-colonial-era-rule-used-against-gandhi-tilak-works-in-india-and-in-these-10-countries/ar-AAMds9T A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana on Thursday issued a notice to the Centre on the need of “colonial” era sedition law asking if it is still required after 75 years of independence.
The Section 124-A: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, 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 which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.
Sedition law | Supreme Court sends strong message to government Krishnadas Rajagopal https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sedition-law-supreme-court-sends-strong-message-to-government/article35348364.ece The CJI’s reference to low conviction rates under the sedition law resonates with a petition filed by senior journalist Sashi Kumar highlighting the “dramatic jump in charging a person with the offence of sedition since 2016”.
“In 2019, 93 cases were on the ground of sedition as compared to the 35 cases that were filed in 2016. The same constitutes a 165% increase. Of these 93 cases, chargesheets were filed in a mere 17% of cases and even worse, the conviction rate was an abysmally low 3.3%,” Mr. Kumar, represented by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, has noted. National Crime Records Bureau reports show that in 2019, 21 cases of sedition were closed on account of no evidence, two were closed being false cases and six cases held to be civil disputes.
Explained: The Kedar Nath sedition ruling https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/vinod-dua-sedition-case-supreme-court-kedar-nath-ruling-explained-7343405/
Seven principles in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling specify situations in which the charge of sedition cannot be applied.
* The expression “ ‘the Government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration..”
* “Any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.”
* “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.”
* “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence ..”
* the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.”
* “It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.”
* “We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.”
