Sedition: Centre Opposes Staying Pending Cases During Review, Proposes Scrutiny By Superintendent Of Police Before Registration Of Future FIRs

The Central government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it may not be a correct approach to stay the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, as no direction can be issued to prevent the registration of cases under a cognizable offence, which has been upheld by a Constitution Bench.

Instead, the Centre proposed that, pending its review of the colonial provision, there can be scrutiny by an officer at the level of the Superintendent of Police before registration of future FIRs for sedition. The satisfaction of such officer can be subject to judicial review, the Centre added

Yesterday, a special bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohlihe had agreed with the Centre's suggestion to defer the hearing of petitions till it reconsiders the provision if it could clarify how it planned to deal with the pending and future cases till the process was complete.

The Court had also suggested that the Centre issue directions to States to not register sedition cases till the review of Section 124A is complete and sought its response on the same.

However, today when the matter was taken up, the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Court that a proposed draft direction has been prepared to be issued by the Centre keeping in mind that a cognizable offence cannot be prevented from being registered. He added that once a cognizable offence was committed, it may not be proper to stay the effect of the provision either by the Centre or the Court. Therefore, the draft suggests selecting a responsible officer for scrutiny, and his satisfaction is subject to judicial review.

Regarding the pending cases, the SG Submitted that they are not sure of the gravity of each case; he pointed out that some of these pending cases may have a 'terror' angle or involve money laundering. Ultimately, he asserted that the pending cases were before a judicial forum and that we need to trust the courts.

"What your lordships can consider is, if there is a stage of bail application involving Section 124A IPC, the bail applications may be decided expeditiously," he submitted.

The SG argued that it may not be the correct approach to pass any other order to stay the provisions upheld by a Constitutional bench in any other cases.

He also highlighted that no individual accused under the impugned Section was before the Court in this case. It was argued that to entertain this PIL may be a dangerous precedent for that reason.

THE HEARING IS PROGRESSING, YOU CAN FOLLOW THE LIVE UPDATES HERE

Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs UNION OF INDIA ( WPC 682/2021) EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.