No Need To Reconsider Judgment On Sedition: Centre Tells SC
Kedar Nath judgement says that only speech which incites violence or public disorder is seditious. Anything else is exempt.
The Centre told the Supreme Court that the 1962 Kedar Nath judgment which deals with sedition is good law and does not need reconsideration. The Supreme Court's 1962 judgement, passed by a five-judge constitution bench has stood the test the time, the Centre added.
In its affidavit, the Centre added that individual instances of abuse of law can never be a justification to reconsider a binding judgment of the Constitution Bench. The remedy, the Centre said, lies in preventing such abuse on a case-to-case basis rather than doubting a long-standing settled law that is 60 years old.
The Kedar Nath judgement says that only speech that incites violence or public disorder is seditious. Anything else is exempt.
The Centre's submission comes days before the top court will hear arguments on whether its 1962 verdict needs to be reconsidered before it deals with the issue on the constitutional validity of sedition.
Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua
Kedar Nath has stood the test of time
It is a settled legal position that a judgment that withstood the test of time and has been followed not mechanically but in the context of changing circumstances, cannot be easily doubted, the Centre added.
The top court has analysed, tested, and elaborated the Kedar Nath judgment in several cases, the latest being in June 2021, the Centre said referring to the Vinod Dua case where the top court quashed sedition charges filed against the late journalist.
Also Read: Explained: What Is Sedition And Why The SC Wants It Dropped
Only a bench of equal strength can pose doubts
The Centre said that the Kedar Nath judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench and it is binding on a three-judge bench. Only a bench of equal strength can doubt the judgment, the Centre added.
The Centre further argued that subsequent judgements on other issues cannot be grounds to refer a long-standing precedent to a larger bench. If this argument is considered then every judicial pronouncement will have to be reconsidered and re-examined.
Also Read: "Do We Need The Sedition Law After 75 Years?": Supreme Court To Centre
Do you always want to share the authentic news with your friends?
