The Supreme Court will on Wednesday take up a clutch of petitions that have demanded the scrapping of the penal provision of sedition in India, which is punishable with a jail term ranging between three years to life.

A special bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, will consider the batch of four petitions pending since 2021. The other members of the special bench are justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

The last hearing in the matter was conducted on July 15, 2021 when the top court rued the “enormous power of misuse” of the sedition law in India, and asked the Union government why it should not scrap a colonial law that was once used by the British government to oppress the freedom movements and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

The court, on that day, observed that indiscriminate use of Section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code is like a saw in the hands of a carpenter who cuts the entire forest instead of a tree. Putting the central government to notice on the petitions that have pressed for striking down Section 124A, the court emphasised that it was concerned about “misuse of the law and lack of accountability of executive and the investigating agencies”.

During the proceedings on July 15, 2021, the government’s top law officer, attorney general (AG) KK Venugopal, on his part, submitted that the entire section need not be struck down, and the court could lay down strict guidelines so that provision meets its legal purpose.

Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union government on that day, sought time to place the formal response on record, saying that the work of the court may get reduced once the Centre has submitted its affidavit in the matter. However, according to people aware of the matter, no affidavit has been filed by the Centre till date.

The court’s comments in July 2021 came amid a sharp increase in the number of sedition cases filed. Between 2016 and 2019, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of such cases rose by 160% to 93. But in 2019, the conviction rate in such cases was a mere 3.3%, which means just two of the accused were convicted.

India’s sedition law has an interesting past -- it was introduced by the British in 1870, and almost dropped from the Constitution in 1948 after discussions of the Constituent Assembly. The word “sedition” disappeared from the Constitution on November 26, 1949 and Article 19 (1)(a) gave absolute freedom of speech and expression. However, Section 124A continued to stay in IPC.

In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru brought in the first amendment of the Constitution to limit the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and enacted Article 19(2) to empower the State to put curbs in the form of “reasonable restrictions” on right to free speech. In its judgment in the Kedar Nath case in 1962, a Constitution bench upheld the validity of the sedition law under IPC and also defined the scope of it. It held that Section 124A only penalised words that reveal an intent or tendency to disturb law and order or that seem to incite violence. This definition has been taken as precedent for all matters pertaining to section 124A ever since.

On July 14, the bench requested the AG to assist it in adjudicating a petition, filed by former army officer SG Vombatkere, that was argued by advocate PB Suresh. This petition questioned the constitutional validity of Section 124A, and sought a directive to quash all proceedings under Section 124A pending with the police and courts across the country.

When the matter was taken up for a detailed hearing on July 15, the bench cited the low conviction rate in sedition cases, asking the AG if it was necessary to retain section 124A of the IPC in the statute book, given the fact that the law had its origin during the colonial era and that the conviction rate in these cases has been dismal.

“If you see history of charging this section, conviction rate is very low. The enormous power of misuse of this section can be compared with a carpenter given a saw. Instead of cutting a tree, he cuts the entire forest,” the bench observed.

(With inputs from agencies)