The Centre sought more time from the Supreme Court to submit its written response to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of sedition.
In an application filed before the court, the Centre said that while the draft of the affidavit is ready, it is still awaiting confirmation from the competent authority.
The bench was considering two writ petitions filed by former retired army official S G Vombatkere and the Editors Guild of India.
As there are more petitions on the issue, the petitioners agreed that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal will lead the arguments for them. Attorney General K K Venugopal will also assist the court in the matter.
Issuing notice on the petitions in July last year, CJI Ramana while referring to the alleged misuse of the provision had asked if the “colonial law...is...still needed after 75 years of independence."
“This dispute about law is concerned, it’s a colonial law. It was meant to suppress the freedom movement. The same law was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak etc. Still, is it necessary after 75 years of independence?", the CJI had asked.
He added that “the enormous power of this section can be compared to a carpenter being given a saw to make an item, uses it to cut the entire forest instead of a tree. That's the effect of this provision."
The CJI also said that “our concern is misuse of law and no accountability of executive agencies".
Responding, the AG said the provision need not be struck down but parameters for its application be laid down so that it meets its legal purpose.
Vombatkre’s plea challenged the constitutional validity of the sedition law on the ground that it causes "chilling effect" on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of free expression.
It contended that “a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ''disaffection towards Government'' etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ''chilling effect'' on speech".
Some of the other petitioners include former union minister Arun Shourie and journalists Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.
(With inputs from agencies)