"No Power To Go Beyond 'Kedarnath' Ruling": Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Sedition Law'

Stressing that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955 is binding on it, Punjab And Haryana High Court last week dismissed a plea challenging the Constitutional Validity Of Sedition Law (Section 124A IPC).

The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice Arun Palli further observed that it has no power to go beyond the Kedarnath judgment and examine the validity of the provision which has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.

In its Kedarnath Singh ruling, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court [Chief Justice BP Sinha and Justices AK Sarkar, JR Mudholkar, N Rajagopala Ayyangar and SK Das] had upheld the validity of Section 124A of the IPC.

The Court was dealing with a Petition moved by Haryana Progressive Farmers Union through Advocate Pardeep Kumar Rapria challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India

The plea further averred that the abuse of the law of sedition continues unchecked with cases being filed to silence critics thereby creating a chilling effect on the right to protest.

"Sedition Law Being Used To Silence Critics": Farmers' Union Moves Punjab & Haryana High Court Challenging S. 124A IPC

The plea had further prayed for quashing and deleting Sections 124-A and 307 from FIR registered against 100 farmers for allegedly attacking the convoy of Vidhan Sabha Deputy Speaker Ranbir Gangwa on July 11.

[NOTE: Observing that "commission of the offence of sedition under Section 124-A IPC in the case is doubtful" the Sessions Court, Sirsa, recently granted bail to five farmers who were charged with Sedition for allegedly attacking the convoy of Vidhan Sabha Deputy Speaker Ranbir Gangwa earlier this month.]

The High Court took into account the following factors to dismiss the plea moved by the Union:

• The persons against whom the FIR has been registered are not the petitioners before the Court and there is nothing on record to indicate that the said persons have authorized the petitioner to act on their behalf.
• The petitioner Union is alleged to be a group of advocates formed by the farmers of various Districts in Haryana for the welfare of farmers, whereas the resolution dated 05.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) reveals that a public charitable trust (Sabka Mangal Ho) purports to have formed the Haryana Progressive Farmers Union "as an advocacy group of the Trust". "Thus, the petitioner, as such, is no entity in law and for lack of requisite material, we cannot fathom as to how this petition would even be maintainable," said the Court.

Further, noting that 4 petitions challenging the Sedition law are already pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court said it was choiceless, but to dismiss the petition, however, the petitioner was granted the liberty to join the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.

Case title - Haryana Progressive Farmers Union v. Union of India and others 

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order