Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, May 7

Ahead of the May 10 listening to to think about if petitions towards validity of sedition regulation needs to be referred to a seven-judge Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Saturday instructed the Supreme Court {that a} three-judge can’t rethink the ratio of a Constitution Bench judgment with out referring the matter to a bigger Bench.

“The judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar [1962] is a constitution bench judgment and is binding on a three-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court. The said judgment in Kedar Nath Singh is a good law and needs no reconsideration. It must be treated as binding precedent requiring no reference,” Mehta stated in his written submissions filed within the prime court docket.

“For a reference to a larger bench also it will be absolutely necessary for the bench of three Hon’ble judges to record its satisfaction that the ratio in Kedar Nath Singh is so patently wrong that it needs reconsideration by a larger bench,” he stated, including, “The bench of three Hon’ble Judges cannot itself decide whether Kedar Nath Singh [supra] is a good law or not.”

Mehta stated, “It is a settled position in law that a judgment which withstood the test of time and has been followed not mechanically but in the context of changing circumstances, cannot be easily doubted.”

A 3-judge Bench led by CJI NV Ramana had on Thursday determined to look at if petitions difficult the validity of sedition regulation underneath Section 124A of the IPC wanted to be referred to a seven-judge Bench as a five-judge Bench had upheld its constitutionality in Kedar Nath Singh’s case in 1962. It had requested the Centre to file their written submissions on the query of reference and posted the matter for listening to on May 10.

The petitioners had not proven any justification based mostly upon which the court docket can report a discovering that Kedar Nath Singh was patently unlawful requiring reconsideration, Mehta added.

The Solicitor General stated, “A holistic reading of Kedar Nath Singh clearly reveals that the Constitution Bench considered the constitutional validity of Section 124A (IPC) from the perspective of all constitutional principles including the test of Article 14, 19, 21 contained in Part III. Merely because Article 14 and 21 are not mentioned, would not undermine its final judicial conclusion.

“The five-judge Bench (in Kedar Nath Singh’s case) read down Section 124A only to bring it in conformity with Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. No reference, therefore, would be necessary nor can the three Judge Bench once again examine the constitutional validity of the very same provision,” asserted Mehta who’s representing the Centre within the matter.

Describing the Kedar Nath Singh verdict as “well-balanced”, Attorney General KK Venugopal had stated, “It balanced free speech and national security… It does not call for reconsideration. The court needs to put in place certain guidelines… what’s permissible and what’s impermissible.”

Referring to the arrest of BJP MP Navneet Kaur Rana and her husband in Maharashtra for allegedly reciting Hanuman Chalisa, he had stated the sedition regulation should stay on the statute guide, however the court docket can lay down pointers to stop its misuse, along with what’s there within the Kedar Nath Singh verdict.

Venugopal had made it clear that “My stand will be different from that of the Central Government as a notice was issued to me in my capacity as the Attorney General.”

Section 124A says an individual commits the crime of sedition, if he/she brings or makes an attempt to usher in hatred or contempt, or excites or makes an attempt to excite disaffection in direction of, the federal government established by regulation in India. It may be by phrases, both spoken or written, or by indicators, or by seen illustration, or in any other case. It prescribes the utmost punishment of life imprisonment.

The regulation on sedition was not there within the authentic IPC, which got here into pressure in 1862. It was added to the Code in 1870 and its ambit was expanded in 1898 with a view to crush the liberty motion.

The petitioners difficult the validity of Section 124A of IPC included Editors Guild of India and former Major General S G Vombatkere, former union minister Arun Shourie and journalists Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.