Supreme Court seeks assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal on plea to strike down sedition law - Section 124A of Indian Penal Code

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal to examine the petition for striking down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises the offence of sedition. .A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana asked the petitioner retired, Major General SG Vombatkere to serve a copy of his plea on the AG. "You send a copy to the office of the Attorney General. We will hear it tomorrow," the Court said. .The Supreme Court is already seized of another petition challenging the validity of Section 124A. .The 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.".It said that judgments like that of Right to privacy in KS Puttuswamy establish that fundamental rights in the Constitution are not to be read as isolated silos or as water tight compartments; "but are to be read as if the content of each fundamental right animates the other.""The reasonableness of the restriction of free speech under 19(2) i.e. in this case the Impugned Provision, will need to considered afresh considering procedural as well as substantive due process embodied in Articles 14 and 21," said the plea. .The petition stated that reasonableness’ of restrictions in Article 19 also has to be tested on the basis of whether the State action is ‘proportionate’ and he understanding of the doctrine of proportionality under the Indian Constitution is of recent vintage owing to judgments in Union of India v. Ganayutham, and more recently in Modern Dental case..Thus, the top court must consider afresh the question as to the constitutional vires of 124A, unconstrained by the upholding of it in Kedar Nath, since the reasons given in that judgment were impliedly overruled. .A three-judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph had, in April this year, issued notice to the Central government on a plea by two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh challenging the validity of the provision for violation of freedom of speech and expression.