The order passed by the Supreme Court in the sedition case is a wishy-washy one and the top court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal said on Friday. .Kirpal opined that the top court should have stepped up and passed a detailed reasoned order in the matter since it could not have "expectations" or "hope" from the executive when it came to doing away with Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which criminalises sedition. "I find it baffling, actually. I think the Supreme Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, pass a reasoned detailed order as to why the sedition law is bad and direct the government not to register FIR, quash or stay pending proceedings. Instead, they've made a rather wishy-washy statement. You can never hope and expect that a government does something," he said.Kirpal, however, said that sometimes such orders are helpful in calming down passionate arguments. However, he said it was an occasion for the apex court to have stood up."But I think what the court has done here, while its being seen as a great thing, a victory for free speech, I think its not the brightest hour of the Supreme Court," he said.The Senior Counsel was speaking as part of a discussion along with journalist Maya Mirchandani on the topic of social media and free speech. The discussion was hosted by the Executive Committee of the Oxford and Cambridge Society of India..The Senior Counsel said that the Supreme Court should have passed a reasoned decision as to why, in their view, the sedition law was bad. "If its bad, then tell us why! Because everything the Supreme Court does percolates down to the other courts in the pyramidal structure of judiciary that we have," he underscored. .The Supreme Court had on Tuesday asked the Central government and States to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition till the government's exercise of reviewing Section 124A is complete.The Bench requested the Central and State governments not to continue investigation or take coercive steps in all pending proceedings under the provision till the government's exercise is complete.The pleas challenging the law argue, among other things, that the provisions of the law are disproportionate to the object it seeks to achieve.A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had in July last year issued notice in the plea and noted that Section 124A was a provision that was used by the British to quell the voices of Indian freedom fighters.That Bench had observed that the law was now being misused when someone does not like the views of another person."Dispute is it is a colonial law and was used by British and suppress freedoms and used against Mahatma Gandhi Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence? Our concern is misuse of the law and no accountability of the executive," CJI Ramana had then said.If police wants to fix somebody, they can invoke Section 124A and everybody is a little scared when this Section is invoked, the Bench had added.The Supreme Court had subsequently sought the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal in the matter. However, the AG had opined,"This Section need not be struck down and only guidelines be set out so that section meets its legal purpose."The call to scrap the colonial-era law has come from several quarters, even as the Union Law Ministry maintained that there is a proposal pending for the scrapping of the provision.Several sitting and former Supreme Court judges have spoken out against the misuse of the provision. After his retirement, Justice Rohinton Nariman had urged the top court to strike down offensive portions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 124A."I would exhort the Supreme Court to not send sedition law cases pending before it back to the Centre. Governments will come and go (but) it is important for the court to use its power and strike down Section 124A and offensive portion of UAPA. Then citizens here would breathe more freely," he said.CJI Ramana had in August last year remarked that there is a recent trend of police officers facing sedition charges when the ruling political party with whom such officers were siding, loses power.The Supreme Court in May last year had said that Section 124A would requires detailed interpretation with respect to its application to media and freedom of press.A three-judge Bench had observed the same while granting protection from coercive action to two Andhra Pradesh news channels TV5 and ABN in relation to the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them by Andhra Pradesh Police for Sedition..[Read our live-coverage of the discussion here].