The Evening Wrap: Supreme Court freezes British-era sedition law till it is re-examined

The Supreme Court on May 11 restrained the Centre and States from registering FIRs, continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under Section 124A (sedition) while the colonial provision is under reconsideration. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana directed that in case any fresh case was registered under the provision, the accused was free to approach the court concerned, which would provide relief taking into account the order of the Supreme Court to freeze the use of Section 124A for the interregnum as well as the “clear” stand taken by the Union to reconsider the law due to glaring abuse of the law by authorities. The court ordered that appeals and proceedings under Section 124A should be kept in abeyance for the time being. However, proceedings under other sections of law would continue. The court gave the Union of India liberty to issue a directive to States and authorities to comply with the Supreme Court order. The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said the court’s interim order would be followed until further orders. The court said it was even willing to consider bail for any of the petitioners, but did not record it in the order as none of the petitioners was affected. The court listed the sedition case in the third week of July. The order came after the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, acknowledged that the law was not in tune with the current times, was being misused and required re-examination. The government had urged the court to pause its hearing of a batch of petitions challenging Section 124A until the government completed its “reconsideration process” of the sedition provision in the Indian Penal Code. The Bench, however, did not give a deadline for reconsideration of the law, probably on the consideration that it would involve a lengthy legislative process. “The court is seized of two considerations, the security of the State and the civil liberties of citizens. There is a request to balance both considerations, which is a difficult exercise,” Chief Justice Ramana read out from the short order, prepared after the court took a small break from hearing arguments on Wednesday. The CJI said the case of the petitioners was that the provisions dated back to 1898 and even pre-dated the Constitution itself. The court referred to Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal’s submissions referring to certain “glaring instances of abuse of Section 124A” like the recent booking of persons under sedition for chanting the Hanuman Chalisa. “Therefore, we expect the re-examination of the provision to be completed and governments to not use the provision in the meanwhile,” the court observed. The Bench said it had to freeze the use of Section 124A while the re-consideration process was on in the interest of justice. In the morning, prior to the delivery of the order, Mehta had submitted that Section 124A represented a cognisable offence and the authorities could not be prevented from registering cases under the provision. He had, however, proposed that a senior officer at the level of the Superintendent of Police (SP) could scrutinise the facts of individual cases prior to registration of FIRs in a bid to prevent any abuse. Mehta had said that there could not be a blanket ban or freeze in the prosecution of pending cases under Section 124A. “We do not know the gravity of offences involved in these cases... Some may also involve charges of terrorism and money-laundering,” Mehta argued for the Centre. He said the accused persons in these pending cases could individually approach the courts for relief. “There is no reason to distrust the judicial process,” Mehta said. He said bail applications under Section 124A could also be heard expeditiously. The law officer urged the court to pronounce an interim order on these lines proposed by the government until the re-consideration of the sedition law was completed. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioners, objected to the Centre’s proposal. “Section 124A is per se unconstitutional... We have not come to court for a stay of the provision. We want the court to strike it down,” Sibal contended. “The Centre says an SP can do pre-FIR registration scrutiny... You have anyone else in mind to do it,” Justice Kant asked the senior lawyer. “We don’t want to go to anyone... The Section is itself unconstitutional,” Sibal replied. “You want us to declare Section 124A unconstitutional today itself... Don’t answer like that,” Justice Kant shot back. “Many are in jail,” Sibal said. Justice Kohli intervened to explain that the court was “only exploring what the situation should be in the interregnum”. After this, the Bench retired to their chambers to discuss and prepare the order. On Tuesday, the court had indicated a willingness to pause its hearings until the government re-examined the law of sedition. However, the court had wanted a clear answer by Wednesday on how it intended to protect the interests of people already arrested and facing prosecution under Section 124A. The court had further sought the government’s response on whether the use of the British-era law could be suspended in view of the reconsideration process. The twist in the sedition case was brought about by an affidavit filed by the Centre in May 9 that it would re-examine Section 124A, inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “belief” that the nation should work harder to shed “colonial baggage”, including outdated laws, while celebrating 75 years of Independence under the banner ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’. Delhi High Court delivers split verdict on marital rape The Delhi High Court on May 11 delivered a split verdict on the issue of criminalising marital rape. Justice Rajiv Shakdher struck down Exception 2 of Section 375 Indian Penal Code (IPC), which decriminalises marital rape. On the other hand, Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the validity of the controversial provision in rape law, saying it was based on “intelligible differentia”. In view of the split verdict, the High Court has permitted the parties involved in the case to approach the Supreme Court over the issue. In India, marital rape is not defined in any statute or law. The petitioners, NGO RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women’s Association and a marital rape victim, had challenged as unconstitutional an exception to Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape. The exception says sexual intercourse by a man with his wife aged 15 years or above is not rape even if it is without her consent. In October 2017, the Supreme Court increased it to 18 years. NGO Men Welfare Trust (MWT), which is opposing the batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape, had argued that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife cannot be treated at a par with that in non-marital relationships as the issue of consent cannot be divorced from the context of a marriage. While the first petition in the case was filed in 2015, the day-to-day hearing commenced in January this year after one of the petitioners mentioned the matter for final hearing. The Centre had earlier in an affidavit, filed in 2017, said that criminalising marital rape “may destabilise the institution of marriage” and would become an easy tool for harassing husbands. However, in an additional affidavit, filed earlier this year, the Centre said it could assist the High Court “only after a consultative process is undertaken by the Central government with all stakeholders, including the State governments”. The Centre had stated that the “absence of any such consultative process by the executive/ legislature may result in some injustice to one section or the other”. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta had argued that a “holistic view” had to be taken on the issue as it involved a sensitive socio-legal issue. The Centre urged the High Court to defer the ongoing proceedings, challenging the provision in law that makes an exception for marital rape, until it carried out a consultation process with all stakeholders, including all State governments. The court had, however, said that this was an aspect it would examine as and when it rendered a judgment in the matter. The Delhi government had, through its counsel Nandita Rao, also argued that creation of marital rape as an offence by court would be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution, as it was the prerogative of the legislature. Rao had said there was no need to interfere with the current law as sexual abuse was already an offence under the domestic violence law. Rao said that sexual abuse was an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with a husband subjecting a wife to cruelty. She had said quashing the exception would be giving primacy to women who had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their husbands as compared to those who had been subjected to mental harassment. Defamation case: Rahul Gandhi seeks permanent exemption from appearance in court Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has moved an application in a court at Bhiwandi in Maharashtra’s Thane district, seeking permanent exemption from appearance in a defamation case filed against him. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) J.V. Paliwal on Tuesday directed the complainant, local RSS activist Rajesh Kunte, to respond to the application and posted the matter for further hearing on May 18. In 2014, Kunte had filed the case against Gandhi after watching his speech in Thane’s Bhiwandi township, where the Congress leader alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was behind the killing of Mahatma Gandhi. Kunte had claimed this statement slandered the reputation of the RSS. In his application moved on Tuesday, Gandhi said being a member of Parliament (from Wayanad in Kerala), he has to visit his constituency, attend to the party work and travel a lot, hence he be exempted from appearing in person before the court. His advocate Narayan Iyer said Gandhi has also stated in his application that whenever required, he be allowed to be represented by his lawyer in the hearing. On Tuesday, Kunte also moved an application seeking exemption from appearance as he was unwell, which was allowed by the court. In 2018, the court had framed charges against Gandhi in the case, but he had pleaded not guilty. Last month, Kunte paid ₹1,500 cost to Gandhi, as per the court’s directions, as he (Kunte) had sought adjournment in the case. Kunte had moved applications seeking adjournment in the case twice — in March and April — which the court had rejected and asked him to pay ₹500 (for March) and ₹1,000 (for April) to Gandhi. Al-Jazeera reporter killed during Israeli raid in West Bank An Al-Jazeera journalist was shot and killed while covering an Israeli raid in the occupied West Bank town of Jenin early Wednesday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said. It said Shireen Abu Akleh, a well-known Palestinian reporter for the broadcaster’s Arabic language channel, was shot and died soon afterward. Another Palestinian journalist working for the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper was wounded but in stable condition. The Health Ministry said the reporters were hit by Israeli fire. The military did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Israel has carried out near-daily raids in the occupied West Bank in recent weeks amid a series of deadly attacks inside Israel, many of them carried out by Palestinians from in and around Jenin. The town, and particularly its refugee camp, has long been known as a militant bastion. In Brief The European Union will no longer require masks to be worn at airports and on planes starting next week amid the easing of coronavirus restrictions across the bloc, authorities said on May 11. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency said it hoped the joint decision, made with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, would mark “a big step forward in the normalisation of air travel” for passengers and crews. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow [logo] The Evening Wrap 11 MAY 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Supreme Court freezes British-era sedition law till it is re-examined    The Supreme Court on May 11 [restrained the Centre and States from registering FIRs, continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under Section 124A (sedition)]( while the colonial provision is under reconsideration. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana directed that in case any fresh case was registered under the provision, the accused was free to approach the court concerned, which would provide relief taking into account the order of the Supreme Court to freeze the use of Section 124A for the interregnum as well as the “clear” stand taken by the Union to reconsider the law due to glaring abuse of the law by authorities. The court ordered that appeals and proceedings under Section 124A should be kept in abeyance for the time being. However, proceedings under other sections of law would continue. The court gave the Union of India liberty to issue a directive to States and authorities to comply with the Supreme Court order. The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said the court’s interim order would be followed until further orders. The court said it was even willing to consider bail for any of the petitioners, but did not record it in the order as none of the petitioners was affected. The court listed the sedition case in the third week of July. The order came after the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, acknowledged that the law was not in tune with the current times, was being misused and required re-examination. The government had urged the court to pause its hearing of a batch of petitions challenging Section 124A until the government completed its “reconsideration process” of the sedition provision in the Indian Penal Code. The Bench, however, did not give a deadline for reconsideration of the law, probably on the consideration that it would involve a lengthy legislative process. “The court is seized of two considerations, the security of the State and the civil liberties of citizens. There is a request to balance both considerations, which is a difficult exercise,” Chief Justice Ramana read out from the short order, prepared after the court took a small break from hearing arguments on Wednesday. The CJI said the case of the petitioners was that the provisions dated back to 1898 and even pre-dated the Constitution itself. The court referred to Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal’s submissions referring to certain “glaring instances of abuse of Section 124A” like the recent booking of persons under sedition for chanting the Hanuman Chalisa. “Therefore, we expect the re-examination of the provision to be completed and governments to not use the provision in the meanwhile,” the court observed. The Bench said it had to freeze the use of Section 124A while the re-consideration process was on in the interest of justice. In the morning, prior to the delivery of the order, Mehta had submitted that Section 124A represented a cognisable offence and the authorities could not be prevented from registering cases under the provision. He had, however, proposed that a senior officer at the level of the Superintendent of Police (SP) could scrutinise the facts of individual cases prior to registration of FIRs in a bid to prevent any abuse. Mehta had said that there could not be a blanket ban or freeze in the prosecution of pending cases under Section 124A. “We do not know the gravity of offences involved in these cases... Some may also involve charges of terrorism and money-laundering,” Mehta argued for the Centre. He said the accused persons in these pending cases could individually approach the courts for relief. “There is no reason to distrust the judicial process,” Mehta said. He said bail applications under Section 124A could also be heard expeditiously. The law officer urged the court to pronounce an interim order on these lines proposed by the government until the re-consideration of the sedition law was completed. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioners, objected to the Centre’s proposal. “Section 124A is per se unconstitutional... We have not come to court for a stay of the provision. We want the court to strike it down,” Sibal contended. “The Centre says an SP can do pre-FIR registration scrutiny... You have anyone else in mind to do it,” Justice Kant asked the senior lawyer. “We don’t want to go to anyone... The Section is itself unconstitutional,” Sibal replied. “You want us to declare Section 124A unconstitutional today itself... Don’t answer like that,” Justice Kant shot back. “Many are in jail,” Sibal said. Justice Kohli intervened to explain that the court was “only exploring what the situation should be in the interregnum”. After this, the Bench retired to their chambers to discuss and prepare the order. On Tuesday, the court had indicated a willingness to pause its hearings until the government re-examined the law of sedition. However, the court had wanted a clear answer by Wednesday on how it intended to protect the interests of people already arrested and facing prosecution under Section 124A. The court had further sought the government’s response on whether the use of the British-era law could be suspended in view of the reconsideration process. The twist in the sedition case was brought about by an affidavit filed by the Centre in May 9 that it would re-examine Section 124A, inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “belief” that the nation should work harder to shed “colonial baggage”, including outdated laws, while celebrating 75 years of Independence under the banner ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’. Delhi High Court delivers split verdict on marital rape The Delhi High Court on May 11 delivered a split verdict on the issue of criminalising marital rape. Justice Rajiv Shakdher struck down Exception 2 of Section 375 Indian Penal Code (IPC), which decriminalises marital rape. On the other hand, Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the validity of the controversial provision in rape law, saying it was based on “intelligible differentia”. In view of the split verdict, the High Court has permitted the parties involved in the case to approach the Supreme Court over the issue. In India, marital rape is not defined in any statute or law. The petitioners, NGO RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women’s Association and a marital rape victim, had challenged as unconstitutional an exception to Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape. The exception says sexual intercourse by a man with his wife aged 15 years or above is not rape even if it is without her consent. In October 2017, the Supreme Court increased it to 18 years. NGO Men Welfare Trust (MWT), which is opposing the batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape, had argued that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife cannot be treated at a par with that in non-marital relationships as the issue of consent cannot be divorced from the context of a marriage. While the first petition in the case was filed in 2015, the day-to-day hearing commenced in January this year after one of the petitioners mentioned the matter for final hearing. The Centre had earlier in an affidavit, filed in 2017, said that criminalising marital rape “may destabilise the institution of marriage” and would become an easy tool for harassing husbands. However, in an additional affidavit, filed earlier this year, the Centre said it could assist the High Court “only after a consultative process is undertaken by the Central government with all stakeholders, including the State governments”. The Centre had stated that the “absence of any such consultative process by the executive/ legislature may result in some injustice to one section or the other”. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta had argued that a “holistic view” had to be taken on the issue as it involved a sensitive socio-legal issue. The Centre urged the High Court to defer the ongoing proceedings, challenging the provision in law that makes an exception for marital rape, until it carried out a consultation process with all stakeholders, including all State governments. The court had, however, said that this was an aspect it would examine as and when it rendered a judgment in the matter. The Delhi government had, through its counsel Nandita Rao, also argued that creation of marital rape as an offence by court would be violative of Article 20 of the Constitution, as it was the prerogative of the legislature. Rao had said there was no need to interfere with the current law as sexual abuse was already an offence under the domestic violence law. Rao said that sexual abuse was an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with a husband subjecting a wife to cruelty. She had said quashing the exception would be giving primacy to women who had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their husbands as compared to those who had been subjected to mental harassment. Defamation case: Rahul Gandhi seeks permanent exemption from appearance in court Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has moved an application in a court at Bhiwandi in Maharashtra’s Thane district, [seeking permanent exemption from appearance in a defamation case]( filed against him. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) J.V. Paliwal on Tuesday directed the complainant, local RSS activist Rajesh Kunte, to respond to the application and posted the matter for further hearing on May 18. In 2014, Kunte had filed the case against Gandhi after watching his speech in Thane’s Bhiwandi township, where the Congress leader alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was behind the killing of Mahatma Gandhi. Kunte had claimed this statement slandered the reputation of the RSS. In his application moved on Tuesday, Gandhi said being a member of Parliament (from Wayanad in Kerala), he has to visit his constituency, attend to the party work and travel a lot, hence he be exempted from appearing in person before the court. His advocate Narayan Iyer said Gandhi has also stated in his application that whenever required, he be allowed to be represented by his lawyer in the hearing. On Tuesday, Kunte also moved an application seeking exemption from appearance as he was unwell, which was allowed by the court. In 2018, the court had framed charges against Gandhi in the case, but he had pleaded not guilty. Last month, Kunte paid ₹1,500 cost to Gandhi, as per the court’s directions, as he (Kunte) had sought adjournment in the case. Kunte had moved applications seeking adjournment in the case twice — in March and April — which the court had rejected and asked him to pay ₹500 (for March) and ₹1,000 (for April) to Gandhi. Al-Jazeera reporter killed during Israeli raid in West Bank An Al-Jazeera journalist was [shot and killed while covering an Israeli raid]( in the occupied West Bank town of Jenin early Wednesday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said. It said Shireen Abu Akleh, a well-known Palestinian reporter for the broadcaster’s Arabic language channel, was shot and died soon afterward. Another Palestinian journalist working for the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds newspaper was wounded but in stable condition. The Health Ministry said the reporters were hit by Israeli fire. The military did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Israel has carried out near-daily raids in the occupied West Bank in recent weeks amid a series of deadly attacks inside Israel, many of them carried out by Palestinians from in and around Jenin. The town, and particularly its refugee camp, has long been known as a militant bastion. In Brief The [European Union will no longer require masks to be worn at airports and on planes]( starting next week amid the easing of coronavirus restrictions across the bloc, authorities said on May 11. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency said it hoped the joint decision, made with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, would mark “a big step forward in the normalisation of air travel” for passengers and crews. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow  Today’s Top Picks [[India’s vulnerability in the global economic tumult] India’s vulnerability in the global economic tumult]( [[Cyclone Asani | Andhra CM tells Collectors to be on high alert] Cyclone Asani | Andhra CM tells Collectors to be on high alert]( [[Data | India’s measles cases doubled in 2022, while over two crore vaccinations skipped in 2021] Data | India’s measles cases doubled in 2022, while over two crore vaccinations skipped in 2021]( [[Goodbye, iPod!] Goodbye, iPod!]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](