National News / Center's U turn in Supreme Court on sedition law, filed new affidavit

New Delhi. Two days after asking the Supreme Court to defend the colonial-era penal law related to sedition and dismiss petitions challenging it, the government on Monday said it decided to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of the law. Is. In a fresh affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Center said, "In the spirit of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence) and in the vision of PM Narendra Modi, the Government of India has decided to re-examine and re-examine the provisions of Section 124A (Sedition Act)". Has decided."

The Center has also requested the apex court not to raise the sedition case until the government investigates the matter. The government reportedly submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court with regard to petitions filed by journalists, activists and political leaders challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 124A makes sedition an offence.

According to a report by Live Law, the Center submitted in the affidavit that there are differing views on the issue in the public domain by jurists, academicians, intellectuals and citizens in the country. The affidavit further states that the government wants to work towards removing the 'colonial burden' at a time when the country is preparing to complete 75 years of independence.

Earlier, the Center on Saturday defended in the Supreme Court the penal law relating to sedition and a 1962 decision of a Constitution Bench upholding its validity. Chief Justice N. V. Raman, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli had said on May 5 that it would hear on May 10 whether petitions challenging the colonial-era penal law relating to sedition could be referred to a larger bench. Is.

In a 38-page written submission filed through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Center had said, "There can never be a justification for reconsideration of a binding decision of the Constitution Bench on the basis of cases of misuse of law." Instead of doubting the established law as decided by the Constitution Bench six decades ago, measures can be taken to prevent such misuse on a case-to-case basis.