Presumption Of Constitutionality Doesn't Apply To Pre-Constitutional Laws: Former Union Minister Arun Shourie Moves Supreme Court Against Sedition Law
Live Law"Sedition is a colonial law which was used expressly to suppress dissent by the British in India," says another plea filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of IPC as being violative of Articles 14, 19, & 21 of the Constitution. Filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of former IT Minister Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause, the plea states that though the provision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar in 1962, the position of law has hence changed and the matter requires reconsideration. Further, it is averred that in Kedar Nath case, the Court failed to take note of a Constitution Bench judgment in Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia 2 SCR 821, wherein it was held that only aggravated disturbance of 'public order' as opposed to mere 'law and order' could be used to restrict freedom of speech and expression and there should be direct and proximate connection between the instigation and the aggravated disruption of public order. Is It Still Necessary To Continue Sedition Law, Which Was Used By British To Suppress Our Freedom Movement, Even After 75 Yrs Of Independence: CJI Ramana To Centre The remarks were made while hearing a petition moved by Army veteran Major-General SG Vombatkere challenging the constitutionality of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of IPC for being 'vague' and creating a 'chilling effect on free speech'.