The Supreme Court on Wednesday put a stay on the sedition law and ruled that no new FIRs will be lodged under this sedition law until the Centre reexamines the provisions of this British-era law, which has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, while dictating the order said that it will be appropriate to not use the law while those already booked under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and are in jail can approach the courts for relief.
The order said, “We hope and expect that the Centre and states will restrain from registering fresh FIRs under Section 124A (sedition) of IPC.”
The order of the top court has been issued a day after it asked the Centre whether the pending sedition cases can be kept in abeyance. The Centre on Wednesday informed the apex court that staying provision of the sedition law may not be a correct approach. The Centre, instead asked the states that only a police officer of the rank of SP or above must record in writing the reasons and compliance with the SC judgement in the Vinod Dua case before a fresh sedition case is to be lodged. There has to be a responsible officer for scrutiny and his satisfaction is subject to judicial review, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said as reported by Hindustan Times.
Also Read: SAI Announces U-20 Volleyball Trials For National, International Events
The top cpurt on Tuesday sought the Centre's stand on keeping the pending sedition cases in abeyance until the Centre goes through the provisions of the law which has been challenged in the apex court. The solicitor general said, "As far as pending cases, we don't know the gravity of each cases, may be there is a terror angle, or money laundering. Ultimately, the pending cases are before judicial forum, and we need to trust the courts."
"What your lordships can consider is if there is a stage of bail application involving Section 124A IPC. The bail applications may be decided expeditiously," advocate Mehta said adding that there is no accused before the court. "To entertain in a PIL may be a dangerous precedent," he said.
