Mahima
In the case of Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v Union of India, the Supreme Court decided to examine the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph issued a notice to the Centre regarding the development while hearing the plea.
This development comes three months after the Court had dismissed Plea by three journalists challenging the constitutional validity of sedition law.
The plea was filed by two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh challenging the validity of sedition law as against being violative of freedom of speech and expression.
Both the journalists submitted that they were charged under Section 124A for voicing their opinions against their respective state governments and the central government.
FIRs against the journalists were registered for sharing comments and cartoons on their social media accounts.
The petitioners contended that even though the 1962 Supreme Court judgment explained sedition law to be constitutional within the ambit of Article 19(2) as it imposed a reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a), it does not qualify to be constitutional any more.
The Plea maintained that there has been enactment of several new legislations dealing with safety and security, public order and terrorism, thereby eliminating the need of Section 124A.
The petitioners further added, “Tendency and intention have been so widely interpreted and employed in such a discretionary manner that those merely exercising their democratic rights have faced penal sanction under the section.”
The petitioners claimed that while abuse of law in itself doesn’t establish the validity of law but it clearly points out the vagueness and uncertainty of the current law.
The judgment in Kedar Nath case was delivered by a five-judge bench and therefore, any judgment pronouncing the validity of Section 124A can be decided only by a bench of seven or more judges.