S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India

In an unprecedented ruling in the case of S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended the enforcement of the controversial Section 124-A3 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as “IPC” hereinafter). Addressing a series of petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124-A IPC, which pertains to the offence of sedition, the Supreme Court has opted to put on hold all ongoing trials, appeals, and proceedings related to charges under Section 124-A IPC.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India has imposed a moratorium on the initiation of new First Information Reports (referred to as “FIR”) by the police. Failure to adhere to this restriction may result in aggrieved parties seeking appropriate relief through the proper jurisdictional courts. These directives issued by the Supreme Court will remain in effect until further orders are issued.

• Case Name: S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India
• Equivalent Citation: (2022) 7 SCC 433
• Date of Judgment: 11 May 2022
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Case no.: Writ Petition(C) No. 682 of 2021
• Case type: Writ Petition (civil)
• Petitioner: S. G. Vombatkere
• Respondent: Union of India
• Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Hima Kohli
• Referred Sections: Section 124A of the IPC, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India

Facts of S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India

S.G. Vombatkere, a retired Army General, initiated a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of India, joined by several petitioners, challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860). This section, dating back to 1898, addresses the law of Sedition, criminalising spoken or visual representations that incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government in power. The penalty for such offenses includes life imprisonment with or without a fine, or imprisonment for three years with or without a fine.

The petitioners contended that the sedition law is utilised to stifle dissent, violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. They argued that the law restricts legitimate criticism of the government, undermining the democratic spirit. Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the provision’s vagueness grants excessive powers to the state, leading to frequent misuse.

The case’s initial hearing occurred in July 2021 before a two-judge bench comprising Justice U.U. Lalit and Ajay Rastogi. The petitioner was directed to provide a copy of the Writ Petition to the Attorney General of India, and the next hearing was scheduled for October 2021. In April 2022, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government, prompting a response to the petition. The Solicitor General of India requested more time for filing the counter-affidavit, a request granted by the court. On May 7th, a written submission on behalf of the Union of India was filed by Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India. An affidavit on behalf of the government followed on May 9th, and the court delivered its judgment on May 11, 2022.

Issues Raised in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India

The issues raised in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India were:

• Constitutionality Challenge: Whether Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, commonly known as the law of sedition, infringes upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• Relevance of Colonial-Era Provision: Whether the law of sedition, rooted in the colonial era, is outdated and fails to align with contemporary principles and values.
• Potential for Misuse: Whether the law of sedition provides authorities with arbitrary powers, making it susceptible to misuse, thereby enabling the suppression of dissent and the curtailment of government criticism.

Contentions by the Petitioner

The petitioner in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India contends that the law of sedition encroaches upon the fundamental right of free speech and expression, stifling even legitimate criticism of the government. Section 124A, being expansive and employing ambiguous language, provides authorities with latitude for misuse, suppressing genuine expressions about the government’s lawful establishment.

Asserting its colonial origins borrowed from the British (UK), the petitioner argues that this law is incongruent with modern democratic principles, posing a substantial threat to the democratic structure.

The petitioner in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India insists that striking down the law is imperative as it grants arbitrary powers to the Center, jeopardising citizens’ fundamental rights. Despite purportedly aiming to protect sovereignty and integrity, Article 124A is accused of being routinely misused, often imposing restrictions that deviate from the concept of reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Contentions by the Respondent

In defence of the law of sedition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, asserts its indispensability in preserving national security, sovereignty, and public order, maintaining that it aligns with democratic principles. The respondent contends that the law is necessary to safeguard the nation’s integrity, preventing activities that could incite disaffection against the government or challenge governance authority.

Emphasising the constitutional vision, the respondent in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India argued that the law of sedition introduces reasonable restrictions, as provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, on the freedom of speech and expression. Acknowledging the potential for misuse, the government expresses awareness and disapproval of unintended infringements on speech liberty. Committed to upholding civil liberties and human rights, the government pledges to scrutinise Section 124A for any necessary amendments.

Judgement Pronounced in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India

In careful consideration of the contentions put forth by the petitioners and the counter-affidavit presented by the Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on May 11, 2022, acknowledged the Government’s recognition of the inadvertent misuse of the law of Sedition as highlighted by the petitioners. The Court commended the Government’s commitment to reassess the provisions of Section 124A. Consequently, the court, exercising its judicial authority, placed the law of sedition in abeyance until further notice.

The Court in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India explicitly directed that during this period of scrutiny, the Government refrain from filing any sedition cases. Parties involved are granted the freedom to approach the court if a new sedition case is initiated. Additionally, the judgment applies to all pending cases, encompassing appeals, trials, and proceedings.

The Court, in its discernment, acknowledged the widespread misuse of the law of sedition, recognising its impact on the right to free speech and expression by inhibiting healthy criticism and stifling dissent. The coercive powers conferred by the law over seemingly trivial matters were deemed contradictory to democratic and liberal principles. The Court emphasised the imperative need for a constitutional analysis of Section 124A, advocating for reforms to align it with democratic ideals. It underscored that restrictions on freedom of speech and expression must adhere to the criteria of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

In its observation, the Court in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India acknowledged the delicate balance required between safeguarding national integrity and security and upholding the citizens’ right to free speech, civil liberties, and democratic values. Recognizing the complexity of this balance, the Court called for a thorough review and rectification of the age-old law of sedition, rooted in the colonial era, to align with contemporary democratic concepts.

The Supreme Court’s decision is lauded by the petitioners, citizens, and human rights organisations as a significant stride towards protecting fundamental rights and preserving the core tenets of democracy.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court of India on Section 124A 

The Supreme Court of India has issued comprehensive directions regarding Section 124A in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, effective until further notice. These directives are as follows:

• Interim Order Continuation: The initial directive emphasises that the interim order will persist until the Supreme Court issues subsequent instructions.
• Restraint on New FIRs and Coercive Measures: The Court has expressly instructed both Central and state governments to abstain from initiating new First Information Reports (FIRs), ongoing investigations, or enforcing coercive measures under Section 124A during the ongoing reconsideration.
• Recourse for New Sedition Cases: In the event of a new sedition case, the affected party is granted the right to approach the court seeking relief. The subordinate courts are tasked with assessing relief requests based on the existing order and decisions made by the Union of India.
• Abeyance of Pending Cases: All pending trials, appeals, and proceedings related to Section 124A are to be held in abeyance. However, the court may proceed with adjudicating other sections if it deems that the accused will not be prejudiced.
• Advisory to Central and State Governments: The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to advise both state governments and Union territories to refrain from initiating new cases under Section 124A. This precautionary measure aims to prevent misuse and misapplications of the provision.
• Continued Validity of Directions: These directions will remain in force until further developments in this matter.
• Relief for Detained Individuals: During the order dictation, the Chief Justice of India highlighted that individuals already booked under Section 124A and detained can seek relief by approaching the relevant courts.

Consequence of the Supreme Court’s Decision

In the case of Aman Chopra vs the State of Rajasthan (2022), the Rajasthan High Court promptly directed the state police to cease the investigation into charges under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Remarkably, these directions were issued on the very day the Supreme Court issued its interim order, putting Section 124A in abeyance.

S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India Case Summary

In the landmark case of S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court suspended the contentious Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, addressing sedition. The petitioner, retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A, asserting its infringement on freedom of speech.

The Court, noting the potential for misuse, ordered a stay on ongoing trials and new FIR registrations under this section. The judgment, pronounced on May 11, 2022, underscored the need to balance national security and citizens’ democratic rights, prompting a reevaluation of the colonial-era sedition law for alignment with modern democratic principles.