DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Progressive leap, courtesy SC

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has yet again fastened the people’s faith in judiciary and its highest office by underscoring the ‘requirement to balance’ security interests of the State with civil liberties of its citizens in Wednesday’s order putting...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has yet again fastened the people’s faith in judiciary and its highest office by underscoring the ‘requirement to balance’ security interests of the State with civil liberties of its citizens in Wednesday’s order putting the sedition law on hold. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has no place in a civilised society, as is evident from cases slapped by various state governments against their political opponents — the latest being the Shiv Sena government’s case against BJP leaders in Maharashtra. The continuance of a law used by the colonial administration to throttle freedom fighters is itself a matter of shame; and then for Independent India’s rulers to misuse this very law to settle political scores is an assault on the basic tenets of the rule of law. The British had used this law to lock up for life all those who expressed hatred against the alien government. Section 124A is as illegitimate as the colonial rule.

The government’s response to the progressive leap taken finally by the CJI, after 75 long years of India’s Independence, is disappointing. The applicability and the contextuality of the law are not only within the Supreme Court’s remit, but it is entirely a justiciable issue for the apex court. There have been previous instances of judicial transgression into legislative and executive spheres, but not this. Who else but the Supreme Court would decide the merits of a law that governments love and the Opposition hates? Then for the government to remind the CJI of the Lakshman rekha over this order was most inopportune as the pursuit of justice has no limits in a democracy.

Last year, the SC Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta had ordered that dissent is not sedition, while dismissing a petition filed against Farooq Abdullah. Now, the Bench of CJI Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli has taken the judicial review forward by offering relief to all those who have been incarcerated under this vague and repressive law. It is the Centre’s responsibility to ensure that the police do not breach the Lakshman rekha of the spirit of this order.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper