A revival of sedition tied to consent
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that trials under the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A) may resume if the accused explicitly consents to the proceedings. This decision aims to provide legal closure for individuals stuck in long-pending cases, though it creates a fragmented legal landscape while the constitutionality of the law remains under review.
Why it matters
The ruling creates a legal paradox where a provision deemed constitutionally suspect by the Supreme Court can still be used to convict individuals, potentially undermining the right to equality before the law.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified on May 21 that courts may proceed with trials, appeals and proceedings under Section 124A of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code if the accused raise no objection. In effect, the direction partially revived the paused colonial-era sedition provision for those willing to face trial.
The article adopts a critical stance toward the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the potential for human rights violations and the 'rock and a hard place' dilemma faced by the accused, which aligns with a civil-liberties-focused editorial perspective.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in