Will Hold Consultations On Sedition Law, Law Commission's Report Not Binding : Union Law Minister
Union Law Minster Arjun Ram Meghwal said that the Government will hold consultations with all stakeholders before taking a final decision on sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code). The Minister further said that the recommendation made by the Law Commission of India to retain the provision with certain amendments and increased punishment is not binding."The law commission report...
Union Law Minster Arjun Ram Meghwal said that the Government will hold consultations with all stakeholders before taking a final decision on sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code). The Minister further said that the recommendation made by the Law Commission of India to retain the provision with certain amendments and increased punishment is not binding.
"The law commission report on Sedition is one of the steps in the extensive consultative process. The recommendations made in the report are persuasive and not binding. Ultimately, the final decision will be taken only after consulting all the stakeholders.
Now that we have received the report, we will also hold consultations with all the other stakeholders so that we take an informed and reasoned decision in the public interest", he tweeted.
While stating that sedition law is necessary to safeguard the unity and the integrity of the nation, the Law Commission said that apprehensions of misuse cannot be a valid ground to demand the repeal of the provision. The Commission suggested a safeguard that an FIR for the offence of sedition be registered only after sanction by the Central or the State Government on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by a police officer not below the rank of inspector. It also recommended that the punishment for sedition be enhanced and it be made punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term up to seven years. The present punishment is up to three years imprisonment.
Last year, the Supreme Court had ordered to keep the provision in abeyance, taking note of the concerns expressed regarding the misuse of the provision to suppress dissent against the government. A bench led by the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had opined prima facie that the "the rigours 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".