Centre Agrees That Section 124A IPC Was Intended For Colonial Rule, Says Supreme Court In Sedition Case Order

In the historic order which effectively put a freeze on pending and future cases for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court made a significant observation that the Union Government also agrees that it is a provision which is not in tune with the current social milieu and that it was intended for the colonial rule.

The 10-page order extracted in full the affidavit filed by the Union Government on May 9 where it stated that it is seeking to reconsider and re-examine the provision. The following paragraphs from the Centre's affidavit, which spoke in detail about the Prime Minister's vision to shed the colonial baggage in the country, especially in the 75th year of its independence.

The following paragraphs from the Centre's affidavit are extracted in the order : 

"The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject and has also periodically, in various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving meaning to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country. He has repeatedly said that one of India's strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in our country.

The Hon'ble PM believes that at a time when our nation is marking 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav' (75 years since independence) we need to, as a nation, work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which includes outdated colonial laws and practices. In that spirit, the Government of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated law since 2014-15. It has also ended over 25,000 complianceburdens which were causing unnecessary hurdles to people of our country. Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been de- criminalised. This is an ongoing process. These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mind set and thus have no place in today's India.

The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various view being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concern of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which can only be done before the Competent Forum".

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli observed that these statements made by the Centre are in tune with the preliminary opinion made by the Court that the sedition offence is obsolete in independent India. It may be recalled that while issuing notice on the petition in July 2021, the Chief Justice of India had orally asked if it was necessary to retain this provision, which was used by the colonial masters to suppress the freedom movement, even 75 years after independence.

The Court felt that the Centre is on same page with it regarding the colonial nature of the provision and its outdatedness in the present social circumstances.

"In view of the above, it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law", the bench recorded in the order.

"This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise", the Court further observed.

The Court also recorded the submission made by Attorney General for India that there are glaring instances of misuse of the provision, like the case where this section was used for recital of Hanuman Chalisa.

"Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments", the Court further observed.