Should Pleas Against Sedition Law Be Referred to a Larger Bench? SC to Examine
The QuintArticle 19 of the Constitution deals with Freedom of Speech and Expression. 19 says: Nothing in sub clause of clause shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. To assess whether the offence of sedition was constitutional, therefore, the court looked to the legislature's ability to impose reasonable restrictions on this right under Article 19. Given that Article 19 allowed reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, the court held that Section 124A could be constitutional if it were interpreted to mean that it can only be invoked where there was a threat to public order, through the incitement of violence. Sibal, therefore, pointed out on Thursday: “We are not challenging power of government to frame law to restrict freedom of speech, we’re challenging right of government to restrict from holding protest against government.”