{"id":293685,"date":"2023-06-02T15:30:50","date_gmt":"2023-06-02T10:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=293685"},"modified":"2023-06-06T17:57:19","modified_gmt":"2023-06-06T12:27:19","slug":"law-commission-recommends-to-retain-section124a-in-ipc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/02\/law-commission-recommends-to-retain-section124a-in-ipc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Law Commission recommends retaining of Sedition Law in IPC with increased punishment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Law Commission of India responding in its Report No. 279 on the subject \u201cUsage of the Law of Sedition,\u201d said that Section 124-A needs to be retained in the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) with certain amendments which can be introduced in it by incorporating the ratio decidendi<\/i> of Kedar Nath Singh<\/i> v. State of Bihar<\/i>, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769<\/a> which says that Section 124-A is constitutionally valid. The restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech and expression are in the interest of public order and are within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with the fundamental right. But the section must be so construed as to limit its application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement to violence.<\/i><\/p>\n

Background:<\/b><\/p>\n

In S.G. Vombatkere<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 433<\/a>, the constitutionality of Section 124-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a> was challenged. The Union of India agreed to re-examine to find out the manner in which the requirement of security interests and integrity of the State should be balanced with the civil liberties of citizens. In this case, the Supreme Court passed an order directing the Central Government and State Government to refrain from registering any FIR or taking any coercive measures while suspending all continuing investigations in relation to Section 124-A. Further, it also directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings be kept in abeyance.<\/p>\n

Recommendations of Law Commission:<\/b><\/p>\n

The Law Commission is of the view that Section 124-A needs to be retained in the IPC<\/a>. The Commission also recommended that the scheme of punishment provided under Section 124-A should be amended to ensure that it is brought in parity with the other offences under Chapter VI of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Further, the Commision took cognizance of the misuse of Section 124-A and further recommended that the model guidelines curbing the same will be issued by the Central Government. In the same context, it was also suggested that a provision similar to Section 196(3)<\/a> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) can be incorporated as Proviso to Section 154<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, relating to Information in Cognizable Cases,<\/b> which can act as a procedural safeguard before filing of a FIR with respect to the offence under Section 124-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Grounds for Retention of Section 124-A:<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Sedition is a Reasonable Restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution-<\/b>\n

    The Contention that Section 124-A is violative of Article 19(1)(a) does not hold any ground as:<\/p>\n