Supreme Court Refers Pleas Challenging Sedition Law To Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (12 September) referred a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the sedition law to a Constitution bench.

Despite the Centre's request to defer reference to a larger bench, the top court instructed its registry to submit the necessary documents to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud so that a decision could be taken for the constitution of the five-member bench, reports NDTV.

The Centre's top lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to defer the hearing due to the introduction of a new Bill in Parliament that aims to replace the Indian Penal Code.

The bench said that even if the new Bill becomes a law, the past cases under Section 124A IPC will not be affected as the new penal law can only apply prospectively, Livelaw reported.

In a significant development last month, the Centre introduced three new Bills in parliament, which aim to revamp the country's criminal laws.

Section 150 of the Bill states that "Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine".

Additionally, two other Bills have been introduced - the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which will replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, which will replace the Indian Evidence Act.

The sedition law was challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to the suspension of criminal trials and court proceedings under the law last year.

The government then asked the Law Commission to review the law. In its report, the Law Commission has expressed strong support for the sedition law, recommending that it should be kept but with modifications based on the specific situations in which it is employed.