NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the 'sedition' provision in Section 152 of BNS and tagged the petition on this issue to pending petitions that challenged the validity of Section 124A of IPC.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by retired Maj Gen S G Vombatkere , who alleged that BNS Section 152 was merely a rewording of the sedition provision defined in IPC Section 124A , which had the maximum penalty of life sentence.
In a PIL filed through advocate Prasanna S, he said, "Section 152 of BNS reintroduces the colonial sedition law , Section 124A of IPC. Though the language is altered, its substantive content - criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as 'subversive activity', 'encouragement of separatist feelings', and acts 'endangering unity or integrity of India' - remains the same or is even more expansive." He was among petitioners who challenged the validity of the IPC section earlier.
On April 23, 2023, a bench led by then CJI D Y Chandrachud had referred to a five-judge bench to decide the validity of the sedition provision under IPC Section 124A after rejecting govt's plea to pause judicial scrutiny and await Parliament's view on the proposed new penal code in BNS.
On May 11,2022, a bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana had suspended operation of the sedition provision to stop police from invoking it against anyone and also stayed both probe and trial in existing sedition cases to allow the Centre to examine pruning the rigour of Section 124A. "We expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law (Section 124A) by govts," the CJI Ramana-led bench had said.
In the Kedarnath Singh case in 1962, SC had read down the provisions of Section 124A . "It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order," it had ruled.
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by retired Maj Gen S G Vombatkere , who alleged that BNS Section 152 was merely a rewording of the sedition provision defined in IPC Section 124A , which had the maximum penalty of life sentence.
In a PIL filed through advocate Prasanna S, he said, "Section 152 of BNS reintroduces the colonial sedition law , Section 124A of IPC. Though the language is altered, its substantive content - criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as 'subversive activity', 'encouragement of separatist feelings', and acts 'endangering unity or integrity of India' - remains the same or is even more expansive." He was among petitioners who challenged the validity of the IPC section earlier.
On April 23, 2023, a bench led by then CJI D Y Chandrachud had referred to a five-judge bench to decide the validity of the sedition provision under IPC Section 124A after rejecting govt's plea to pause judicial scrutiny and await Parliament's view on the proposed new penal code in BNS.
On May 11,2022, a bench headed by then CJI N V Ramana had suspended operation of the sedition provision to stop police from invoking it against anyone and also stayed both probe and trial in existing sedition cases to allow the Centre to examine pruning the rigour of Section 124A. "We expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law (Section 124A) by govts," the CJI Ramana-led bench had said.
In the Kedarnath Singh case in 1962, SC had read down the provisions of Section 124A . "It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order," it had ruled.
You may also like
Tommy Fury makes decision about Bambi's future after own Love Island past
Spain's population hits record-breaking 50m after staggering migrant arrivals
Bhopal: After Saurabh Case, Lokayukta SPE Does Not Lay Hands On New Cases
Mo Salah asks pointed question of UEFA after 'Palestinian Pele' killed by Israeli forces in Gaza
The 'masterpiece' WW2 film with an impressive 95% Rotten Tomatoes score
