It is worth recalling that in S.G. Vombatkere versus Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court directed the Union and state governments to refrain from registering FIRs, conducting investigations or taking any other coercive measures under Section 124A of the IPC.
—
RECENTLY, a first information report (FIR) was registered against Jagat Thoudam, an Imphal-based politician and adviser to a Meitei outfit Indigenous People’s Front of Manipur, under Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The filing of this FIR assumes significance because it comes in direct defiance of a Supreme Court Order of May 11, 2022, putting the operation of Section 124A of IPC in abeyance pursuant to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the provision.
According to The Hindu, the FIR has been filed against Thoudam for writing an opinion column for the Imphal-based The Frontier Manipur, where he allegedly wrote that the ongoing crisis in Manipur is the “creation of the Assam Rifles unit at Mantripukhri”.
On Thursday, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) issued a statement against the possible FIRs registered for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC. IFF is a New Delhi-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) that advocates for digital rights and liberties.
In the statement, it says: “New reports indicate that an FIR has been registered for the offence of sedition under Section 124A [of the IPC]… Reportedly, the chief secretary of Manipur had previously issued a warning that individuals spreading ‘fake news, lies, rumours or misinformation’ will be charged with sedition. This despite the Supreme Court specifically directing state and Union governments to refrain from registering FIRs, conducting investigations or taking any other coercive measures under Section 124A.”
It is worth recalling that in S.G. Vombatkere versus Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court had directed the Union government and states to refrain from taking coercive measures under Section 124A of the IPC.
One of the petitions was filed by major general (Retd) S.G. Vombatkere, challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A, IPC. Similar petitions challenging the validity of sedition law were filed by journalists Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha from Manipur and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla from Chhattisgarh.
In his petition, S.G. Vombatkere argued that: “A statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards the government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes a constitutionally impermissible ‘chilling effect on speech’.”
The petition argued that reading down Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962), which upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A, would not be enough.
Recently, the 22nd Law Commission of India has recommended retention of Section 124A, IPC, calling it a ‘traditional penal mechanism’ for countering terrorism in India.
