New Delhi: Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday said that he "respected the court and its independence” but there is a "Lakshman Rekha" that cannot be crossed, shortly after the Supreme Court passed its historic order putting on hold the controversial sedition law and directed the government to review the colonial-era law.


COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

"We've made our positions very clear and also informed the court about the intention of our PM (Prime Minister Narendra Modi). We respect the court and its independence. But there's a 'Lakshman Rekha' that must be respected by all organs of the state in letter and spirit. We have to ensure that we respect the provisions of the Indian Constitution as well as existing laws," the Law Minister told reporters.


 Respect court but there is a 'Lakshman Rekha' that can’t be crossed: Union Law minister Kiren Rijiju on SC’s sedition ruling https://zeenews.india.com/india/respect-court-but-there-is-a-lakshman-rekha-that-can-t-be-crossed-union-law-minister-kiren-rijiju-on-sc-s-sedition-ruling-2462477.html


Rijiju made these remarks shortly after the top court said that the controversial sedition law will be on hold as the government reviews it and those in jail can approach courts for bail.


The top court also rejected the Centre's argument that such trials should continue in courts as charges like terror could be involved.


The Supreme Court directed the Centre and state governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the sedition provision, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, till review of the law by Centre is complete.


On Tuesday, the top court had sought the Centre`s response on putting the law in abeyance in the interest of the people, till it completes the re-examination of the law.


In an interim order, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said it would be appropriate to put the provision - which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment - in abeyance until the Centre reviews it. The top court declined to entertain the Centre`s request not to stay the operation of the provision. And, also pointed at needing to balance civil liberty and sovereignty of the state, in view of several instances where the law was misused.


The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said, "It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over. We hope and expect the Centre and states will desist from registering any FIR under Section 124A or initiate proceedings, till the re-examination is over". 


The top court said the Centre is free to issue additional directions to the state governments and scheduled the hearing of pleas challenging the validity of the sedition law in the third week of July.


The bench said those jailed under the law or facing prosecution can approach the courts for relief. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had earlier contended that Section 124A should not be put in abeyance, since the constitution bench upheld its validity in 1962 in the Kedar Nath judgment.


Today, the Centre proposed issuing an advisory to the state governments that only a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) - who may record in writing the reasons for a case involving sedition provision (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) - as it cannot prevent police from registering a cognizable offence under sedition provision.


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted that the government proposes that a police officer of the level of SP or above should decide, for now, on whether a sedition charge should be filed in future FIRs. He added that as the government reviews the sedition law, pending sedition cases can be reviewed, and the courts can decide on the bail application of those under Section 124A IPC, expeditiously.


Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, contended that Section 124A has become prima facie unconstitutional and the apex court must stay application of the sedition provision till the Centre reviews the provision.


Mehta submitted that as far as pending cases are concerned, gravity of each case is not known, maybe there is a terror angle, and also the pending cases are before judicial forum. "We need to trust the courts," he added.


Justice Kant told Sibal, "What is this argument...Can it be struck down today?" The bench added that it is looking for an answer who can be an impartial authority, in the view of Centre`s proposal, and asked Sibal what an arrangement in the interregnum can be done.


On Tuesday, the top court had sought the Centre`s response on pending and future cases registered under the sedition law.


The Ministry of Home Affairs in its affidavit said the Prime Minister of India has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject and has also periodically, in various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of the protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving to the constitutionally cherished freedoms to the people of the country.


The home ministry added that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that one of India`s strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in the country. The ministry said the Prime Minister believes that at a time when the nation is marking Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence), as a nation it is essential to work harder to shed colonial baggage that passed its utility, which includes outdated colonial laws and practices.


"The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various views being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concerns of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which can only be done before the competent forum," said the affidavit.