In a brief order delivered in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India effectively suspended the operation of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The provision, which criminalises sedition, has been used by successive regimes, including by governments post-Independence, to suppress democratic dissent. Previously, during oral hearings, the Bench, presided by the Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramana, had indicated that it was of the view that the law was an anachronism, a colonial-era relic. Now, through an order on May 11, the Court has directed governments, both at the level of the Union and the States, to keep “all pending trials, appeals and proceedings” arising out of a charge framed under Section 124A “in abeyance”.
Basis of reconsideration
This direction was issued after the Union government filed an affidavit informing the Court that it had decided to re-examine the law. The deposition, by itself, offered no firm commitment on whether the Government would, in fact, recommend to Parliament a complete removal of Section 124A. But the Bench believed that the offer to reconsider the provision, if nothing else, showed that the Government was in broad agreement with the Court’s prima facie opinion on the matter, that the clause as it stands “is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime”.
