The sedition law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence?: Supreme Court

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, today equated the British-era sedition law to "a saw" used to cut a forest instead of a piece of wood. "If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124 A... People are scared." the bench said.

Describing Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on sedition as "colonial", the bench questioned the necessity of this law after 75 years of Independence. The law holds "enormous power" for misuse with no accountability for the executive and poses a serious threat to the functioning of institutions, the bench said.

"The sedition law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence?" the Chief Justice of India questioned. It was suggested by the Attorney General, KK Venugopal that the law be retained with "guidelines".

"We are not blaming any state or government, but look at how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used, how many unfortunate people have suffered and there is no accountability for this..." the bench said.

Also Read: It is shocking. We will issue notice: Supreme Court on Continued Use of Scrapped Section 66A of IT Act

According to the court, several petitions have been filed contesting the sedition law, and all cases will be heard together. The court will examine the validity of this law and has asked the Centre to respond to a former army officer's petition that says the law causes a "chilling effect" on speech and acts as an unreasonable restriction on free expression.  

Prior to this, another bench of the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to reply to a petition filed by two journalists challenging the sedition law.

The petitioner, Major-General (Retd) SG Vombatkere, contended that sedition law is wholly unconstitutional and should be "unequivocally and unambiguously struck down". Chief Justice NV Ramana said, "The petitioner has almost sacrificed his life to the country. So it is not a motivated petition."