The Supreme Court Wednesday directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A, which deals with the offence of sedition, be kept in abeyance till the central government completes the promised exercise to reconsider and re-examine the provision.
A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana also said it is of the view that till re-examination of Section 124A is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue usage of the provision by various governments and added that the court hopes and expects that the Centre and the states will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measure by invoking it till the review happens.
If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A, affected parties are at liberty to approach concerned courts for reliefs, said the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli. The bench added that if any such person approaches the courts, “The courts are requested to examine the reliefs taking into account the present order as well as the clear stand taken by Union of India”.
Hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provision, the court had on Tuesday asked the Centre if it can direct states to keep cases under the provision in abeyance 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 getting registered”.
It, however, added that what can be done is to direct that interpretation of the Supreme Court in the Vinod Dua case ought to be scrupulously followed and adhered to and to ensure that FIRs involving Section 124A be registered only if an officer 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 in this case.
“So, he stands responsible if the matter is to, and will, go to a judicial forum. The reason is this—once there is a cognisable offence, the cognisable offence is held to be valid by the Constitution bench, either the government or the court by interim order staying the effect is not the course of action,” said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre.
The bench also said the Centre will be at liberty to convey the directives it has formulated to prevent misuse of the law, and place them before the court, to the states, and Union Territories too. ( Indian Express )
