Supreme Court Keeps abeyant Sedition Law Till Review

Share on:


"All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with relevance charges framed for sedition should be kept suspended," the highest court said

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre and states to refrain from registering any FIR invoking sedition charges till further re-examination is over

"All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with reference to charges framed for sedition should be kept suspended," the highest court said

Earlier, during the hearing, the Centre suggested that a superintendent of police ranked officer can be made chargeable for monitoring the registration of FIRs for the offence of sedition.

A three-judge bench presided by magistrate of India N V Ramana also said it's of the view that till re-examination of Section 124A is complete, it'll be appropriate to not continue usage of the supply by various governments and added that the court hopes and expects that the Centre and therefore the states will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measure by invoking it till the review happens.

Hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the availability, the court had on Tuesday asked the Centre if it can direct states to stay cases under the supply delayed till the promised exercise is completed.

In response, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that keeping in mind the mandate of law, “we cannot prevent a cognisable offence from getting registered”.

It, however, added that what may be done is to direct that interpretation of the Supreme Court within the Vinod Dua case must be scrupulously followed and adhered to and to make sure that FIRs involving Section 124A be registered on condition that a politician not below the rank of superintendent of police is satisfied and records his satisfaction in writing that the offence alleged involves the section as analysed by the Supreme Court during this case.

“So, he stands responsible if the matter is to, and will, visit a judicial forum. the rationale is this—once there's a cognisable offence, the cognisable offence is held to be valid by the Constitution bench, either the govt or the court by interim order staying the effect isn't the course of action,” said peace officer Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre.

The bench also said the Centre are going to be at liberty to convey the directives it's formulated to forestall misuse of the law, and place them before the court, to the states, and Union Territories too.