The Chief Justice of India has quietly nudged the Centre towards scrapping the ‘colonial’ law
The cat is out of the bag. By asking the Union Government why the “colonial” law of sedition is necessary after 75 years of Independence, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice NV Ramana, has driven the unending debate over the controversial legislation in a direction that can only lead to closure. CJI Ramana’s observations help lay bare all the options before the executive or the judiciary to conclusively deal with the issue of sedition. There is a discernible pattern to the judicial build-up against the misuse of the sedition law by the Government and the police. CJI Ramana opened his innings by underlining the need to stop infringing on the fundamental and human rights of citizens, with a special emphasis on sedition. In the last two years, in particular, it has been used to incarcerate journalists, activists, protesters, academics, and farmers on charges unrelated to incitement for violence. It has fuelled a civil society demand for scrapping it. In May, the apex court stayed action against two Telugu-language news channels by the Andhra Pradesh Police on charges of sedition and remarked that “it is time to define the limits of sedition”. The next month, the court quashed sedition charges against journalist Vinod Dua by a BJP leader for making comments critical of the Prime Minister. On June 30, CJI Ramana, delivering the Justice PD Desai Memorial Lecture, made a general observation without reference to any particular law: “An ‘unjust law’ might not have the same moral legitimacy as a ‘just law’, but it might still command the obedience of some sections of the society to the detriment of others.”
In the latest instance, the SC agreed to examine a plea questioning the constitutionality of Section 124(A) and the CJI wondered: “We do not know why the Government is not taking a decision. Your Government has been getting rid of stale laws.” This can be construed as the broadest hint, ever, from the judiciary to the Government to scrap the controversial law. If the Government was looking for a push from the judiciary, it has got it now. If the Government acts on the hint, it will have taken a bold step but at the cost of the credibility of its police apparatus which will then be unable to defend charging hundreds of people with sedition. The Government can also choose to allow the judiciary to take the initiative and scrap the law. There are two important precedents in the form of the Supreme Court’s scrapping of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised “unnatural sex” between consenting adults, and striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act because it “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech”. In the case of sedition, the SC has two options. One, to examine the pending pleas for scrapping the law. Two, review its 1962 decision in the Kedar Nath Singh case in which it upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law.