The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to forward the group of petitions that question the legality of Sedition as outlined in Section 124A of the IPC to a bench comprising at least five judges.
Supreme Court agrees to refer the batch of petitions challenging the offence of #Sedition under Section 124A of the IPC to a bench of atleast 5 judges.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to forward the group of petitions that question the legality of Sedition as outlined in Section 124A of the IPC to a bench comprising at least five judges.
A three-member panel, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, determined that a referral to a larger panel was necessary due to the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case, where a five-judge panel had previously upheld the provision in question. The panel, led by Chief Justice of India, expressed concerns that, given its smaller size, it might not be suitable to question or overturn the Kedar Nath decision.
The bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, outlined in their ruling that Kedar Nath had been decided based on a narrower interpretation of fundamental rights that prevailed at the time, wherein fundamental rights were seen as separate and distinct entities. However, they noted that this legal understanding had evolved over time, influenced by subsequent judgments that emphasized the harmonious interaction of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Supreme Court has also declined Centre's request to defer reference to larger bench as Parliament is re-enacting provisions of penal code.
During the proceedings, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani brought to the bench's attention the introduction of a new bill known as the "Bharathiya Nyaya Samhita" in the Lok Sabha, with the aim of replacing the Indian Penal Code. The Attorney General conveyed that this new Bill, notably, does not encompass the offense of sedition and has been referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Consequently, he requested the bench to postpone the hearing until the legislative outcome is known.
However, Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, promptly interjected to assert that the new Bill contains a similar provision, which he described as "even more severe." Adding to this point, Arvind Datar concurred, stating that "sedition" continues to exist within the new Bill, albeit under a different label.