A three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph has issued notice to the Union of India on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 124 -A of Indian Penal code which penalises the crime of sedition.
TFM Desk
The Supreme Court has eventually issued notice and sought the response of the Union of India on a writ petition filed by two journalists Kishorchandra Wangkhemcha, associate editor of The Frontier Manipur and Kanhhaiya Lal Shukla, another journalist from Chhattisgarh, challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124-A IPC-Sedition.
The Supreme Court’s order said that this writ petition “prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be unconstitutional and void. Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits inter alia that the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 769, may require reconsideration. Issue notice, returnable on 12.07.2021.”
On Friday, a three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph was hearing the petition filed by the two journalists against whom FIRs have been filed under Section 124-A IPC (Sedition) for “comments and cartoons” they have shared on social networking website Facebook.
Hearing the plea, the bench asked Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves who appeared on behalf of the petitioner that whether the charges have been framed in a trial court and what is the actual position before trial court. The Senior Advocate representing the petitioner informed that the charges before trial court in the proceedings have not been framed yet. Thereafter, notice was issued by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner has contended that such section contravenes the contours of article 19(1) which guarantees the citizens of India, a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
By way of writ petition, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of section 124 -A of Indian Penal code. Such section contravenes the contours of article 19(1) which guarantees the citizens of India, a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Further, the restriction imposed by the section is an unreasonable one, and therefore does not constitute a permissible restriction in terms of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The first and second petitioners are journalists working in the states of Manipur and Chhattisgarh. They have been charged with sedition under section 124A of IPC in various FIRs for comments and cartoons shared by them on the social networking website Facebook.
For Kishorchandra Wangkhemcha, multiple FIRs have been registered against him since 2018 with an agenda to silence his voice. He had spent a total of 210 days in custody with respect to numerous FIRs under Section 124A IPC since 2018.
Kishorchandra was arrested after lodging of FIR dated 9.08.2018 under section 505(2)/500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 only on the basis of his criticism of the Government of Manipur, he made through his Facebook post with regard to a crisis at the Manipur University and the students’ hue and cry against the Vice-Chancellor for alleged embezzlement of funds and suppression of the students’ union.
He was released on bail on 13.8.2018. However, in a second FIR Lodged against him under section 124A/194/500 IPC, alleging certain comments were made through video posted on facebook which found to be derogatory criticising particular political leaders. He was arrested on 20.11.2018, and was in police custody for 6 days. He was released on bail on 26.11.2018.
Against Kanhhaiya Lal Shukla, the journalist from Chhattisgarh, an FIR was registered on 28.4.2018 under section 124-A IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000, alleging “objectionable cartoons of senior leaders” were shared on facebook. He was granted anticipatory bail on the case by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, vide order dated 26.7.2018.
According to the petition, grounds on which petitioners have challenged the validity of section 124A of IPC 1860 include:
1. Because Section 124-A violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the fundamental, Constitutional and democratic right to freedom of speech and expression, 81which is the ‘cornerstone’ and the sine quo non of democracy;
2. Because Section 124-A is unnecessary to protect the interests of state security and public disorder, and is duplicated by more recent legislation which directly and sufficiently prevents and deals with the mischief of public disorder and public violence; 3. Because there exists no urgency justifying the employment of Section 124-A, given that the interests of state security and the public order are sufficiently protected elsewhere in Indian law;
4. Section 124-A imposes unreasonable restrictions and fettered on the freedom of expression, and fails to constitute the least restrictive means to protect state security and public disorder in this regard.
5. the terms ‘intention’ and ‘tendency’ in the interpretation of Section 124-A are so subjective that the law is uncertain and unascertainable and are an invitation to abuse by authorities
6. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda, the offence of sedition has been condemned as undemocratic, undesirable and unnecessary.