oppn parties Even "Time-Tested" Laws Need To Be Re-Examined As Times Keep Changing

News Snippets

  • Ministry of External Affairs said that China is building bridges in the areas occupied by it in Pangong
  • India tells Western nations that there is no global shortage of wheat so it should not name India alone as the country has suffered setback in production due to the heatwave in March
  • RBI has slashed the dividend it pays to the Centre by 70% to Rs 30307 cr. Last year it had paid Rs 99132cr
  • Probe panel says that the Telangana encounter of 4 rape accused was staged
  • A Mathura court says that the Mathura Shahi Idgah case does not fall under the Places of Worship Act
  • Calcutta HC says CBI cannot be asked to probe each and every matter
  • CBI files fresh case of corruption against Lalu Prasad and family for scams when he was railway minister
  • Jet Airways likely to begin commercial operations in September
  • In a day of assured trading on Friday, bulls make a comeback: Sensex rises 1534 points to 54326 to recover all losses of the earlier session, Nifty rises 456 points to 16266
  • IPL: Ashwin scores a quick-fire 40 to take Rajasthan Royals home against CSK and ensures top two finish
  • Supreme Court sentences Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year rigorous imprisonment in the 1988 road rage case
  • Home Minister Amit Shah says rights should not be demanded before fulfilling responsibilities and that universities are no place to wage ideological battles
  • NIA court convicts JKLF chief Yasin Malik in terror funding case after he pleads guilty of all charges
  • A study backed by PM-EAC has recommended universal basic income and urban job guarantee and greater spend on social sector schemes
  • Supreme Court rules that the decisions of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre and the states, leaving the door open for states to levy further taxes
Supreme Court transfers Gyanvapi case to Varanasi district judge
oppn parties
Even "Time-Tested" Laws Need To Be Re-Examined As Times Keep Changing

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-05-08 10:12:27

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Centre supported Section 124A of the IPC (commonly referred to as the sedition law) in the Supreme Court. In its opinion, there is no need to re-examine the Kedar Nath judgment as "instances of abuse of provision would never be a justification to reconsider a binding judgment". It further said that the court should provide a remedy that stops misuse without "doubting a longstanding settled law declared by a Constitution bench for about 6 decades".

The Centre is wrong on many counts. The need to take a relook at both the constitutional validity of Section 124A and the Kedar Nath judgment has arisen precisely because the Constitutional bench in 1962 had upheld the validity of the section and provided guidelines to prevent its misuse but in these 60 years, the guidelines have failed to have the necessary effect and the misuse of the section has not stopped. It is ironical that a regime that has accelerated and widened the misuse of the section is now saying that the court should provide further guidelines to prevent the misuse. If only successive governments had applied Section 124A in both letter and spirit and had treated the Kedar Nath judgment and the guidelines therein as binding, a situation where citizens have to plead before the Supreme Court to take a relook at the provision would not have arisen in the first place.

Further, society undergoes changes due to evolving cultural norms and introduction of technology, among many other reasons. Laws are also changed periodically to keep them up to date with emerging trends. Six decades is a long time and there is absolutely no harm if the apex court reconsiders the earlier judgment. The need to re-examine a "time-tested" law or judgment arises because times keep changing. There was no social media and mobile phones in 1962. Television had just made an appearance in late 1959 and only government sponsored news was broadcast.  Politics was not so utterly divided and polarized. In these six decades a lot has changed and infinitely more people are getting their voices heard through social media. Also, governments have become thin-skinned and cannot tolerate even constructive criticism, let alone outright dissent. Section 124A is now being so commonly used that it seems it is being used for petty crimes. The time is perfectly ripe for the Supreme Court to take another look whether Section 124A meets the constitutional test since the Kedar Nath judgment, which could not have anticipated the huge advancement in technology, has failed to prevent its growing misuse.