Connect with us
Tuesday,09-September-2025
Breaking News

National News

Supreme Court to examine if petitions challenging sedition law should be referred to larger bench

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave last opportunity to Centre to file its response on petitions challenging the sedition law, and also agreed to hear arguments on whether the case should be referred to a larger bench.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, that a draft is ready in the case and it is awaiting approval from competent authority, and sought an extension to file the counter affidavit.

As the Chief Justice told Mehta that 9 or 10 months ago, notice was issued on the petitions, and asked him to argue without the counter-affidavit, Mehta mentioned that fresh matters have been filed in the case and requested the court to grant more time — given the nature of the matter and its repercussions.

At this the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said: “It is a question of law and we are sure you can assist us in the matter. What is the issue?”

However, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said he is ready to argue the matter.

He said the sedition law is valid, in view of the Kedar Nath Singh case judgement (1962), which balanced freedom of speech and security of state.

Urging the top court to lay down guidelines to prevent misuse of the law, he said: “Misuse (of the sedition law) is controlled… the question of reference (of Kedar Nath Singh case to a larger bench) does not arise.”

The Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh case clarified that only those acts, which involved incitement to violence or violence, constituted a seditious act under Section 124 A of the IPC.

The AG, who is assisting the court in personal capacity, said: “You’ve seen what’s happening in the country…someone was detained as they wanted to recite Hanuman Chalisa, they’ve been released on bail…the single most important thing is what is permissible and what is not permissible… this is very important.”

The AG was referring to the case of the Rana couple in Mumbai, who were charged with sedition for wanting to recite the Hanuman Chalisa as he emphasised that the law should not be repealed, rather more clearly defined.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that the three-judge bench can consider the matter, instead of referring to a larger bench.

“Colonial masters do not control us anymore. We own our own destiny… no longer subjects of the crown,” he said, adding that the three-judge bench can go into the issue ignoring Kedar Nath.

As Sibal added that his client’s petition did not seek reconsideration of Kedar Nath, the bench, however, pointed out that other petitioners sought the reconsideration of the verdict.

Sibal elaborated that Kedar Nath judgment had confused between the state government and the Centre, and quoted what Mahatma Gandhi said about sedition offence – “It is my right to create disaffection against the government”. The AG countered that they have to show what is wrong with the Kedar Nath judgment, and added that the issue is not with the law, but with its misuse and abuse.

Venugopal argued that individual cases can be examined, where the law was implemented in a bad way, and opposed referring the petitions against sedition law to a larger bench. “Law which is fair and valid but is implemented in an unfair and abusive manner will not make the law unconstitutional…” he said. Sibal said many changes had taken place since the Kedar Nath Singh judgment.

After hearing arguments, the bench sought written submissions from the Centre and petitioners and scheduled the matter for hearing on question of reference to a larger bench on Tuesday.

Giving the last opportunity to Mehta to file a written response on the petitions by Monday, the bench said it will not give any further extension.

The top court was hearing petitions filed by Major General S.G. Vombatkere (retd) and the Editors Guild of India and others, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Vombatkere’s plea argued that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards government’, etc., is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘chilling effect’ on the speech.

National News

SC asks HCs to ensure timely upload of reasoned judgments

Published

on

suprim court

New Delhi, Sep 9: The Supreme Court has directed High Courts across the country to ensure that reasoned judgments are uploaded without delay after the pronouncement of operative orders.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta termed the delay a “matter of grave concern” after noting that the Punjab and Haryana High Court pronounced its decision on February 18, 2016, but uploaded the full judgment only on July 18, 2018 — a gap of about 2 years and 5 months.

“Over a period of time, it has been the practice of a few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time, the reasoned judgment is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this court in many of its judgments and orders,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said.

Citing the apex court’s earlier ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, it said: “Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely, which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.”

The Supreme Court directed that its judgment be circulated to all High Courts, reiterating the guidelines laid down in the Anil Rai case requiring judgments to be delivered without delay.

“We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order, more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced,” the bench observed.

Earlier in August, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra had voiced strong concern over long delays by High Courts in pronouncing judgments after hearings are concluded, warning that such a situation erodes “litigants’ faith in the judicial process”.

The Justice Karol-led Bench noted that it is “repeatedly confronted” with cases where proceedings are kept pending in the High Courts for over three months, and in some instances for more than six months or even years.

Disposing of a special leave petition (SLP) concerning a criminal appeal pending since 2008 in the Allahabad High Court, the apex court had termed it “extremely shocking and surprising” that the judgment was not delivered for nearly a year from the date when the appeal was heard.

Continue Reading

Crime

Kalyan Advocate Suicide Case: Shiv Sena (UBT) Leader, Co-Accused Seek Anticipatory Bail; Husband Opposes

Published

on

crime

Of the five accused named in the alleged abetment to suicide case of activist-advocate Sarita Khanchandani, two have approached the Additional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. The pleas, however, have been strongly opposed by the deceased’s husband, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, who claimed that the accused have criminal antecedents and pose a high risk of tampering with evidence.

Accused Dhananjay Bodare, Shiv Sena (UBT) Kalyan district president, in his bail plea questioned the credibility of the suicide note recovered by Sarita’s family. Bodare described the note as “vague and omnibus,” alleging that it mentions several individuals collectively without assigning specific roles to any of them.

FPJ has accessed the detailed anticipatory bail application, which have challenged the suicide note alleging it to be‘so-called suicide note to be a vague and omnibus in nature’, which states:” Names of several individuals have been mentioned together in the notice without any details or attribution of acts. “

The ABA copy further reads, “The deceased, her husband, and daughter are all advocates by profession and well-versed with law. If there was any abetment, they would have produced the suicide note immediately. Instead, its discovery days later—after police initially refused to register abetment charges—raises serious doubts about its authenticity. The note appears to be an afterthought, fabricated to falsely implicate the applicant,” the plea argues.

The application further points out that initially, after the incident on August 28, no abetment offence was registered despite public allegations on social media by the family. The alleged suicide note was claimed to have been found on September 1, following a purported recovery of the deceased’s “lost mobile” and CCTV footage showing her writing in a diary.

Opposing the pleas, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, advocate Sarita’s husband,  alleged that Bodare and others, have allegedly  systematically harassed Sarita over a property dispute. He claimed that Bodare had allegedly illegally encroached on government land, built an unauthorized Shiv Sena Shakha, and attempted to capture part of Sarita’s property.

The objection states, “The accused deliberately created an atmosphere of fear and pressure, instigating Sarita to take the extreme step. They used political clout and even filed false cases under the Atrocities Act to force her to withdraw an FIR. They also defamed her through derogatory social media posts,” the reply reads.

The husband further alleged that Bodare rewarded co-accused Ulhas Falke by appointing him as Shakha Pramukh of the unauthorized shakha and used threats and nuisance to terrorize Sarita. The reply also cites Bodare’s alleged involvement in rioting, land encroachment, criminal intimidation, and violations under the Water Pollution Act.

The husband  asserted that custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for an effective probe, as they may possess vital evidence. He warned that granting anticipatory bail could allow them to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and derail the investigation.

“Bodare is one of the masterminds of this crime and has been absconding since the FIR was registered,” the reply reads.

Another accused, Raj Chandwani, also sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR does not attribute any specific role to him and that his arrest would cause hardship to his family. His plea too was opposed by Khanchandani.

The court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas.

Continue Reading

National News

Sonia, Rahul Gandhi cast their votes for VP election

Published

on

New Delhi, Sep 9: Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) Chairperson Sonia Gandhi arrived at the New Parliament Building in New Delhi to cast their votes for the Vice Presidential election on Tuesday.

The election is witnessing the contest between the NDA nominee, Maharashtra Governor C.P. Radhakrishnan, and the INDIA bloc candidate, former Supreme Court judge B. Sudershan Reddy.

Congress National President Mallikarjun Kharge arrived to cast his vote. He was accompanied by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, and both were seen smiling and walking hand-in-hand.

Congress Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was also seen arriving to cast her vote for the Vice-Presidential election.

Other parliamentarians of the NDA and the INDIA bloc were also trooping in to cast their votes.

Union Ministers Kiren Rijiju and Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu, along with Shiv Sena MP Shrikant Shinde, have been appointed as official election agents for the process.

Counting of votes will be held later in the day, after which the results will be announced.

This election holds significant political weight, as the Vice President also serves as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, making the role crucial in the functioning of Parliament.

The electoral college for the Vice Presidential election comprises 781 members, including 542 elected members of the Lok Sabha and 239 members of the Rajya Sabha (233 elected and 12 nominated, with six vacancies across both Houses).

All votes carry equal value, and voting is conducted through a secret ballot, as per established parliamentary procedure. The majority mark needed to win is 391 votes.

The Vice President’s post fell vacant after Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on July 21, citing health concerns, on the first day of the monsoon session of Parliament.

Political observers expect a keenly watched contest, though the NDA is seen as having a numerical advantage in the combined strength of the two Houses.

However, all eyes remain on potential cross-voting and the outcome this evening.

Continue Reading

Trending