[Sedition] These are the 7 petitions in Supreme Court challenging Section 124A IPC

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises sedition is under challenge before the Supreme Court of India. The colonial law which was used by British to muzzle free speech had been challenged before the top court on previous occasions too. .In 1962, the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. Union of India had upheld the validity of the same. However, the Supreme Court has now questioned the Central government on the need for the law, 75 years after independence. These remarks came on a petition filed by an Army veteran, SG Vombatkare challenging the provision.Besides Vombatkare, there are 6 other petitions pending before the top court challenging the provision. .Find below for ready reference details of each petition, their status and the copy of the petition. .JOURNALISTS FROM MANIPURTwo journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla who have been charged with sedition for posts and cartoons published on social media platforms, have challenged the provision. They contended that Section 124A infringes upon an individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).Status: In April, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government on the plea. The Union of India is expected to file its counter affidavit by the end of this month..PEOPLE UNION OF CIVIL LIBERTIESThe plea said that sedition is a political crime, originally enacted to prevent political uprisings against the Crown and to control the British colonies.The provision is anachronistic and has lost all relevance in a free democracy like India and has no place in independent India, it was submitted.Status: The petition has not been heard yet.MAJOR GENERAL (RETIRED) SG VOMBATKEREThe plea by Vombatkere sought a fresh examination of Section 124A unconstrained by the upholding of the provision in the 1962 judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v Union of India.It stated that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. "is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech."Status: The Court issued notice to the Central Government and the office of Attorney General for India. During the hearing, CJI NV Ramana observed that since the government had repealed so many outdated laws, was sedition still needed 75 years after independence. .EDITORS GUILD OF INDIAThe plea challenged Section 124A as being violative of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). Status: The plea has been tagged with that of Major General Vombatkere by a bench led by CJI NV Ramana..FOUNDATION OF MEDIA PROFESSIONALSThe intervention application by the organisation said that the law of sedition is a colonial dictate, that was devised to "crush the independence movement", and not out of democratic instincts."The tendency of the British to ensure complete allegiance and compliance of the Indian citizens not only in action but also in thought, is blatantly evident from the evolution of the law on sedition. It is relevant to note, however, that the Indian courts have largely crusaded against regarding every unpleasant word as 'actionable', championing the cause of the media," the plea stated.Status: Notice was issued on the plea by a Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit and the matter is now likely to be heard on July 27.SENIOR JOURNALIST, SASHI KUMARThe intervention application by Kumar stated that there has been a 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 percent increase, it was pointed out. However, the conviction rate was an abysmally low 3.3 percent, the plea said. Status: This plea was also listed before a bench headed by Justice UU Lalit and will be taken up next on July 27..ARUN SHOURIE AND COMMON CAUSE OF INDIAFormer IT minister Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause have stated that section 124A is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. They contended that the offence of sedition is vague and it fails to define criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. Moreover, terms like “contempt”, “hatred” and “disaffection” used in the provision are broad and vague. Status: The plea is yet to be listed. .Since more petitions are being filed, Bar & Bench will keep adding them to the list as and when registered. .Apart from the above 7, some of the other petitions are:.PROFESSOR FROM ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE.Dr Sanjay Jain, an Assistant Professor from ILS law college, Pune, in the plea challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124A states that one of the settled principles relating to the application of test of whether the law has become arbitrary is that the object of the law no longer survives, whereby the operation of the law does not have or serve an existing purpose. The plea referring to the Shreya Singhal case states that Section 124-A and the law of Sedition requires a careful, sober deliberation keeping in mind the changed circumstances today. Status: The plea is an intervention application in the Manipur journalist's case. The plea will be heard on July 27 by a bench led by Justice UU Lalit. .PATRICIA MUKHIM AND ANURADHA BHASIN.The Shillong and Kashmir based journalists have stated in the plea that offence of sedition is an oppressive legal device inherently susceptible and amenable to being deployed to curb free speech, freedom of the Press, criticism, dissent and to punish critical voices in a democracy.The plea states that the judgment in Kedar Nath Singh is no longer good in law in view of the judgment in RC Cooper. The plea states that the three tier categorization of the punishment for the offence of sedition, ranging from life imprisonment to fine simpliciter, without any legislative guidance for sentencing, amounts to granting unbridled discretion to judges, which is hit by the doctrine of arbitrariness and violates Article 14.STATUS: Plea has been filed on July 19, 2021 and is yet to be listed for first hearing