There was a need to balance the interest of citizens with that of the state
The Supreme Court’s decision to put on hold the much-abused sedition law is a welcome step. It goes a long way in assuring the people that the top court of the country is keeping its eyes and ears open and doing everything within its jurisdiction to prevent the state from trampling on the right of a citizen. The SC must be complimented for allowing the centre time to re-examine and reconsider the law with a rider that in the interval the colonial law will be kept in abeyance. Rejecting the Centre’s argument that several accused under the sedition law may be involved in terror and money laundering cases, the SC also gave relief to those rotting in jails under the law and said they can approach courts for bail. The Centre looked desperate to cling to the law when it told the Court that cases under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cases under sedition law be registered only when the area Superintendent of Police spelled out the reason in writing. The centre contended that it was not right to prevent the registration of a cognizable offense and a responsible officer should be there for scrutiny for filing of cases under the sedition law. The court did not agree with this view and altogether put the law in abeyance. It is good to see the Centre taking cognizance of public opinion and judicial nudge to revisit a law that has been repeatedly abused to scandalize and persecute mainly political opponents and right activists.
There are dozens of cases where journalists have been booked under the draconian law for exposing cases of corruption and crime against powerful politicians. Similarly, filmmakers, poets, and political activists have also been accused of committing offence against the state under the seduction law and booked for waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government (Section 121 of the IPC), conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 (Section 121A) and collecting arms to wage war against the government (Section 122). The law has been so blatantly misused that during five years between 2-14 and 198, of the 326 cases of sedition filed against people in different parts of the country, the state could secure conviction only in six cases. The SC’s decision has not gone down well with the Government. Shortly after the order, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said while he “respected the court and its independence", there is a "Lakshman Rekha" that cannot be crossed. It’s not clear what the minister meant by the `Lakshman rekha’ because the court was well within its right to review or put on hold any law. On his part, Chief Justice N V Ramana righty said that there was a need to balance the interest of civil liberties and the interests of citizens with that of the state.
