The Central government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that. Staying the registration of FIRs for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code might not be the best approach. Because no order can be issued to prevent the registration of cases under a cognizable offence. Which has been upheld by a Constitution Bench.
Instead, the Centre proposed that future FIRs for sedition be scrutinized by an officer. At the level of the Superintendent of Police while the colonial provision is being reviewed. The satisfaction of such an officer might be challenged in court, according to the Centre.
Yesterday, a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohlihe agreed to the Centre’s request to defer petition hearings while it reconsiders the provision if it could clarify how it planned to handle pending and future cases until the process was completed.
Centre opposes stay of pending cases through review process
The Court further proposed that the Centre send instructions to states not to register sedition charges until the Section 124A review is completed, and it requested a response.
However, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, informed the Court today that the Centre has drafted a proposed draught direction to be issued, keeping in view that a cognizable offence cannot be prevented from being recorded. He went on to say that once a cognizable offence has been committed, it may not be appropriate for the Centre or the Court to stay the effect of the provision. As a result, the draught advises that. A responsible officer be chosen for scrutiny. And his satisfaction can be challenged in court.
In regards to the ongoing cases, the SG stated that they are unsure of the severity of each case; he also stated that some of the outstanding cases may have a ‘terrorist’ element or include money laundering. Finally, he stated that the pending cases were in front of a judicial forum. And that we should 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”. He submitted.
The SG stated that passing another order to halt the provisions upheld. By a Constitutional bench in other cases might not be the best option.
He further stated that no one has been charged under the contested Section in this matter. For that reason, it was contended that hearing this PIL could set a hazardous precedent.
