Arun Shourie - Presumption Of Constitutionality Doesn't Apply To Pre-Constitutional Laws

BACKGROUND

• Provision of sedition law was placed under Section 113 of the IPC and was later amended to Section 124A.
• One of the important post-independence cases dealing with sedition law is Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar where the constitutional validity of Section 124A was in contention and the Supreme Court upheld its validity.
• Recently, there have been several cases where the High Courts and the Supreme Court have provided protection to various ministers and journalists from the sedition law.

PLEA BEFORE THE COURT

• The plea filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the Union Minister, Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause challenges the constitutional validity of Sedition Law in the present scenario.
• It was submitted that in ‘Kedar Nath’, the constitutionality of Section 124A of Penal Code, 1860, was tested and upheld because the Court faced 2 interpretations and it decided on the one which saved the law.
• The plea also stated that Section 124A was violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), & 21 of the Constitution of India.
• It also alleged that the law of sedition is being heavily abused with the cases being filed against the citizens for exercising their Freedom of Speech and Expression.

CASES REFERRED BY THE COUNSEL

• The plea also stated that in the cases of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws, as they were formed by a foreign legislature.
• The plea also referred to the judgment of Superintendent Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, where it was held that there should be a direct or near connection between the instigation and disruption of public order.
• Referring to R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, it was stated that the doctrine of severability was being applied in a wrong manner because the Court has not read down any part of Section 124A, rather it has read into the Section.

What do you think about this case and the sedition laws and their applicability in the country?