[BREAKING] Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence? Supreme Court asks AG in challenge to Sedition law under Section 124A IPC

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Central government as to whether the provision of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was still needed after 75 years of independence (SG Vombatkere v. Union of India)..CJI Ramana asked Attorney General KK Venugopal,"Dispute is that it is a colonial law and was used by British to suppress freedoms and used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence?".A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy also issued notice in the plea filed by SG Vombatkere and tagged it with a similar pending petition filed by the Editors Guild of India..AG Venugopal today pointed out that a similar challenge to the provision was already pending before another Bench of the apex court..Appearing for Editors Guild of India today, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued,"It's the same issue and a challenge on the statutory provision, and we demanded certain guidelines. We said how 124A, apart from being unconstitutional, is being grossly misused.".CJI Ramana proceeded to pose some questions to the AG, including,"If you see history of charging under this section, conviction rate is very low. Alarming numbers of misuse can be compared to a carpenter using a saw to cut a tree...but the entire forest.".The CJI also cited the example of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, under which "thousands of cases" were being registered despite the fact that the provision was struck down..[BREAKING] "What is going on is terrible:" Supreme Court on continued use of Section 66A of IT Act; issues notice to Centre in plea by PUCL.He went on to say,"Our concern is misuse of the law and no accountability of the executive. I will look into other cases referred to...we will examine all pending cases and may be post all the cases in one place.".The Court also wondered why the Centre has not looked into this provision, having repealed a number of old laws..In response, AG Venugopal said,"This Section need not be struck down and only guidelines can be set out so that it meets its legal purpose.""If some party doesn't want to hear the voice of another party, they may use this type of law and implicate other people. It's a serious question for individuals," the Court replied..The Court also commented on the bona fides of the petitioner, who is a retired Major General, stating,"The petitioner has sacrificed his whole life for the country for his service. We cannot say it is a motivated petition.".The Bench went on to issue notice in the matter and tagged the plea along with the one filed by Editors Guild of India..Another Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice UU Lalit is already seized of another petition challenging the validity of Section 124A..The plea by Vombatkere sought a fresh examination of Section 124A, which was upheld in the 1962 judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v Union of India.It was contended 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.".The plea further said that judgments like that of KS Puttaswamy establish that fundamental rights in the Constitution are not to be read in 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 petition.It 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, it was contended that the top court must consider afresh the question as to the constitutional vires of 124A, unconstrained by the fact that it was upheld in Kedar Nath, since the reasons given in that judgment were impliedly overruled..Supreme Court seeks assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal on plea to strike down sedition law - Section 124A of Indian Penal Code .A three-judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph had, in April this year, issued notice to the Central government in 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..[Read Order].[Read Petition]