Solicitor General Tushar Mehta filed a note in the Supreme Court today where he said that the judgment of the Supreme Court pertaining to Kedar Nath Singh which upheld the validity of Section 124A was rendered by a 5-judge Constitution bench and so it cannot be heard by a lower bench of 3 judges. Therefore, a 3- judge bench cannot hear legal challenge to Constitutionality of Section 124A.
SGI further said that the Kedar Nath Singh judgement has withstood the test of time and just an individual episode or a lone instance cannot uproot the entire system or mechanism .It further said that it holds its relevance in the present times too ,so only a co-equal strength of Bench can pose any doubts on the verdict .
The Kedar Nath Judgement therefore needs no reconsideration, and must be treated as a binding precedent requiring no reference added the Solicitor General
Reconsidering the judgement like Kedar Nath cannot be done , just on some random instances of its abuse.He said has been held that if law is valid but is been misused, the law may not become invalid.
“The remedy would lie in preventing such abuse on a case-to-case basis rather than doubting a long standing settled law declared by a constitution bench since about six decades”
-the written note said.
The bench of the Apex Court has given 10 May as a date to hear the petitions challenging validity of sedition under Section 124A should be referred to a Constitution bench.
Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal on the last hearing had had defended the Constitutional validity of Section 124A before the Supreme Court.
AG KKVenugopal had said the Kedar Nath Singh judgement upholds the validity of Section 124A which is a thoughtful decision and should be upheld.
The basic question still remains unanswered as to whether we need a law like “Sedition law”after we have completed almost 75 years of our Independence. The Question was posed to Central Government by the Supreme Court way back in 2021.
The Supreme Court had, questioned the centre while issuing notice on whether the law was needed 75 years after independence?
The Court had also sought the assistance of the Attorney General in the matter.
Attorney General as well as Solicitor General were there to give views and suggestions and tge central Government is yet to file its response. Central government is yet to file its response to the plea.
During the last hearing ,the bench was still in a fix whether the matter needs to be referred to a larger bench since the petitions had prayed for overruling Kedar Nath.
“Justice Surya Kant who is the member of 3 judges bench said that almost all the writ petitions ask for striking down the Kedarnath judgement and striking down of the article 124A.
The judge also said that we “Can we proceed hearing this case without reference of Kedar Nath to larger bench.”