APEX COURT YET TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 124A IPC (SEDITION) –

APEX COURT YET TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 124A IPC (SEDITION) –

The?Bench of 3 Judges namely Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramanna, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy after tagging all the 3 writ Petitions vide order 15.07.2021 directed to list the matters before appropriate Bench.

Lately, the three judges Bench presided by Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, Justice L.Nageshwara Rao, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat ?issued notice on the Petitions filed by Telgu TV Channels and were of the view that?provisions of section124a, 153a and 505 of Indian Penal code necessitates urgent consideration examining the parameters of aforesaid provisions vis a vis right to electronic and print media in communicating news , information. Two Telgu Channels namely?TV5 and ABN vide such Writ Petition under Article 32 were aggrieved of the First Information Report lodged against them under section124a, 153a and 505 of Indian Penal Code. The fact is that During the programmes, Mr Raghurama Krishnam Raju, Member of Parliament is alleged to have expressed views critical of the State Government and the Chief Minister. Besides Mr Raju, who has been named as the first accused, TV5 and ABN have been named as the second and third accused.

Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate and Shyam Divan advocate represented on behalf of Telegu TV channels argued before 3 judges Bench that attempt to lodge a FIR against the channel amounts to an assault on independence of electronic media and on Freedom of Speech. The 3 judges bench passed direction to Andhra Pradesh Govt

On 12.07.2021 ,?KK Venugopal ,Ld. Attorney general for Union of India sought two weeks time to file written Submissions and Tushar Mehta, Ld. SGI sought two weeks time to file affidavit in reply.?

By way of writ petition , KishoreChandra Wangkhemcha 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 factual matrix of the case is which is as follows

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 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. As far as Petitioner no.1 is concerned , multiple FIRs have been registered against him since 2018 with an agenda to silence his voice and to suppress his journalism. He has spent a total of 210 days in custody with respect to numerous FIRs under Section 124A IPC since 2018.

?The petitioner No.1 got arrested post 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 akin to crisis at the Manipur University and the students’ hue and cry against the ViceChancellor for alleged embezzlement of funds and suppression of the students’ union.?He came out on bail on 13.8.2018. Strangely, 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 Petitioner No.2, 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 shared on facebook. Petitioner No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail regarding the said FIR by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, vide order dated 26.7.2018.

Law reiterated in Pursuant to Section 124A, IPC 1860 ?–

The Supreme Court categorically held in?Para 20 of?R. Rajagopal v. State Of T.N. 1995 AIR 264 that , "In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in Government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.”

SECTION 124A OF IPC -

The Hon’ble apex court in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) SCC 788 ) reiterated significance of Freedom of Speech and Expression ,and held ?that “Free expression is necessary: (1) for individual fulfillment, (2) for attainment of truth, (3) for participation by members of the society in political or social decision making and (4) for maintaining the balance ‘between stability and change in society.” Freedom of expression importantly, allows the political discourse which is necessary in any country which aspires to democracy.

Interestingly, in a drastic constitutional development, there are few countries such as New Zealand, Uganda, Ghana etc who have repealed sedition and declared it to be unconstitutional.

?Few Grounds which have been taken by the Petitioner , challenging?validity of section 124A of IPC 1860 -

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.

?