On Friday, Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal stated that the government would engage with all parties involved before making a decision regarding the sedition statute (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code).
The Minister added that while the report’s recommendations are persuasive, they are not legally binding.
In a tweet, Meghwal said, “The law commission report on Sedition is one of the steps in the extensive consultative process. The recommendations made in the report are persuasive and not binding. Ultimately, the final decision will be taken only after consulting all the stakeholders.”
“Now that we have received the report, we will also hold consultations with all the other stakeholders so that we take an informed and reasoned decision in the public interest,” read another tweet by the Union Law Minister.
Section 124A of the IPC must be preserved because of “internal security threats” and to prevent crimes against the state, according to the Law Commission of India, which is in favour of keeping sedition laws in place. However, certain provisions may be changed.
According to the commission’s report to the Law Ministry, there are risks to India’s internal security, and only state security can guarantee citizen freedom.
It goes on to say that social media frequently acts at the “initiation and facilitation of foreign powers” in spreading radicalism against India and inflaming public opinion against the government. This makes it even more necessary for Section 124A to be in place.
The Law Commission referred to Sedition as a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19 (2) and noted that the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Section 124A’s validity because the restriction it intended to impose was a reasonable restriction.
“Laws like the UAPA and NSA are special laws that seek to prevent the commission of offences targeted towards the State. The law of sedition seeks to prevent the violent, illegal and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government established by law. Other laws contain much more stringent provisions,” it further stated.
Statute dates back to “colonial” periods
The Commission further stated that the mere fact that a statute dates back to “colonial” periods does not constitute a “valid ground” for its repeal.
“If sedition is considered to be a colonial-era law, then by that virtue, the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy. The mere fact that a legal provision is colonial in its origin does not ipso facto validate the case for its repeal,” it stated.
The sedition laws “should not be repealed” only because other nations have done so, it was further emphasised, because every nation must deal with its “own set of realities”.
In its findings, the Law Commission also provided some suggestions for changes to the clause, including making the preliminary investigation necessary, adding procedural safeguards, and changing the penalties.
“Implementation of the Supreme Court Kedar Nath judgment to bring about more clarity in the interpretation, understanding and usage of the sedition law. A mandatory preliminary investigation to ascertain evidence be ordered by a police officer before registration of an FIR for sedition and other procedural safeguards through the issuance of model guidelines can also be taken by the Centre,” the Commission stated in its recommendations.
It further added, “The provision regarding punishment for sedition be revised to allow for greater room in accordance with the scale and gravity of the act. The law be amended to include that there has to be a tendency to incite violence or public disorder”.
Before the Supreme Court, Section 124A of the IPC’s legality was contested.
Also Read: TCS onboards 44,000 freshers in FY23, honors all job offers
In order to avoid wasting the Supreme Court’s valuable time, the Union of India assured the court that it was re-examining Section 124A. Accordingly, and by order issued on May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court instructed the federal government and all state governments to forgo filing any formal complaints (FIRs) and desist from using coercive measures, while also halting all ongoing investigations into Section 124A.
It further ordered the suspension of all ongoing trials, appeals, and proceedings.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK