Time to review abuse of new sedition law
If reports are inaccurate or indecent, journalists should indeed be hauled up. Other laws can be invoked to seek redress for such faults. However, if democracy is to be protected, the right of journalists to ask questions of the government should be accorded at least as much weight as the State's prerogative to avert such questions in the name of protecting public order or national security. To level a charge as serious as sedition to tilt the scale the other way is to debilitate democracy itself. It's not because the law has its roots in the colonial era that it should be repealed, but because of the colonial-minded silencing it's being used for. A 'tendency test' similar to the one invoked in Kedar Nath Singh (1962) should be applied to governments' intent as well.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC decision on pleas seeking stay on stray dog order likely today
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its decision on pleas seeking stay of its August 11 order directing relocation of stray dogs to dedicated shelters on Friday. A three-judge bench presided by Justice Vikram Nath had on August 14 reserved its interim order on the issue of managing the stray dog population in the National Capital Region (NCR). The top court's intervention came just days after another bench initiated suo motu proceedings and ordered relocation of strays from the streets to dedicated shelters. Reserving its decision, the bench, headed by Justice Nath, and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, directed all intervenors to file affidavits with supporting evidence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the government had argued: 'Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if you immunise that does not stop mutilation of children.' 'There is a vocal minority view against a silent majority view,' he added. Mehta said that while the Rules exist, they are inadequate and the top court must intervene to address the issue. The 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules deal with the management of the stray dog and cat population. The rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. The apex court's August 11 order had specifically directed that the stray dogs should not be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation. The suo motu case initiated by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala was subsequently re-assigned by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to the three-judge bench headed by Justice Nath. It was brought to the notice of the court that another bench had in a matter relating to strays called for a compassionate approach.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In Bihar 2003, Election Commission took longer, allowed EPIC, checked citizenship selectively
DEFENDING THE ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India (ECI) not only held up the 2002–03 roll as the benchmark of voter eligibility, but strongly backed its three-month timeline, and refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to consider the voter ID card as proof of eligibility. However, the Commission's instructions during that 2002–03 intensive revision paint a different picture, according to former ECI officials and Chief Electoral Officers who oversaw the last exercise. Consider the following: * In 2002-03, seven states — Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Punjab — had eight months, more than double the time allowed now, to complete the process. * No proof of citizenship was sought then from existing electors in 2002 rolls. * The Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC) was the backbone of verification of existing voters then. In effect, with these criteria and not where one of 11 documents are required, the process for those who got on the 2003 list — about 4.96 crore — was, in both letter and spirit, much more inclusive. An email sent to the Election Commission for its comment did not elicit a response. These differences lie at the heart of the petitions now before the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the three-month window (June 25–September 30, 2025) is unreasonably short in a state headed for polls in October–November, where many voters struggle to procure documents. They also contended that the ECI is straying into questions of nationality, which is beyond its mandate. The Court will resume hearing the matter on Friday. Three aspects of the 2002–03 exercise which sit uneasily with the Commission's defence of the Bihar SIR: * Compressed Timeline: In its counter affidavit before the Supreme Court, the ECI dismissed concerns over timelines as 'misconceived, erroneous and unsustainable,' and said its order provides 'adequate time' for completion. 'The last such exercise was undertaken in Bihar in 2002-2003, and the period of enumeration was from 15.07.2002 to 14.08.2002. The current SIR has an enumeration period from 25.06.2025 to 26.07.2025. Thus, the allegation that ECI is conducting the exercise hastily is misconceived,' it said in the affidavit before the apex court. The Commission's claim on the one-month enumeration (or door-to-door verification) window is factually correct, but incomplete — the 2002–03 revision had stretched over eight months. 'The ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar — starting with training, door-to-door verification of electors, collection of eligibility documents, scrutiny of claims and objections, and ending with final publication of rolls — must be completed in just 97 days. By contrast, the last intensive revision in Bihar and six other states stretched from May 2002 to December 2002, lasting eight months,' said a retired ECI official associated with the 2002–03 intensive revision, on the condition of anonymity. In 2002–03, the intensive revision spanned 243 days; 74 days for preparing a preliminary list of electors based on existing rolls, training enumerators, conducting pre-enumeration surveys, and rationalising polling booths; 31 days for house-to-house verification, also known as the enumeration phase; 60 days for preparing and printing draft rolls; 15 days for claims and objections; and 61 days for disposing of these claims, making additions, deletions and corrections. The current exercise, by contrast, has been compressed to 97 days: one month for training enumerators, conducting pre-enumeration surveys, rationalising polling booths and carrying out the enumeration itself; publication of draft rolls three days later on August 1; one month for filing claims and objections; 25 days for their disposal and for deciding on enumeration; and final publication on October 1 — barely weeks before the likely announcement of poll dates. * Year 2003 as 'Probative Evidence': Equally significant is the 2003 cut-off itself. The Commission has argued that electors on the rolls until that year should be presumed citizens since they 'have gone through the intensive revision of 2003 and remained so far in the electoral rolls, demonstrating probative evidence of eligibility.' 'Thus, their eligibility, as enumerated under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, is presumed, unless any other input is received otherwise,' the ECI said in its counter affidavit before the SC, calling the 2003 cut-off 'valid and non-discriminatory.' While relying on the last intensive revision as probative of citizenship, the 2002–03 exercise itself did not require electors to produce such proof. 'In the 2002–03 revision, enumerators visited households with lists drawn from existing rolls and verified whether the names of adult Indian citizens already on the list were still ordinarily resident. They corrected or added particulars where needed, but electors were not asked to produce proof of citizenship,' recalled a former state CEO associated with the last intensive revision across seven states in 2002-03, who did not wish to be identified. In fact, the 2002–03 instructions made clear that enumerators were not to determine citizenship. Their role was limited to verifying qualifications of age and ordinary residence. For checking nationality, there were only two exceptions. First, in the case of first-time electors seeking registration, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) could, if he or she felt the need, seek documents to satisfy the question of citizenship. The ERO was also directed to ensure that no person who had been declared a foreigner, or whose name had been deleted as such by any tribunal or authority under a central or state law, was included in the final rolls, even if their names appeared in the existing electoral roll of 2002. Second, in areas with a substantial presence of foreign nationals, as flagged by the state government, the 2002–03 guidelines prescribed additional safeguards. Existing electors in these areas did not have to prove citizenship. However, enumerators could add new names only if they belonged to households already on the rolls or if they possessed an EPIC. All other applicants had to apply separately. In new cases, the ERO was responsible for verifying citizenship under relevant laws, conducting fair hearings, and considering a range of documents — passports, birth or citizenship certificates, NRC entries. * EPIC Card: In the 2002–03 intensive revision, the voter ID card or EPIC was the backbone of verification of existing electors — enumerators were told to check it at every household and correct the particulars on that basis. 'They were ordered to ask electors or their family members to produce the card, match the EPIC number in the list with the one on the card,'' said a former state CEO who did not wish to be identified. Two decades later, the Commission has taken a different position. In the ongoing Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, it didn't accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to consider EPIC cards as proof of eligibility for existing electors of Bihar. 'That it is submitted that the EPIC cannot be treated as proof of eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR), 2025, as pursuant to Rule 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 read with Rule 25 of the RER, 1960, the said revision constitutes a de novo preparation of the electoral roll. The EPIC cards are prepared on the basis of electoral rolls. Since the electoral roll, itself, is being revised, the production of EPIC Cards will make the whole exercise futile,' the EC said in its counter affidavit. An intensive revision of the electoral roll is a de novo preparation of the roll from scratch through house-to-house verification by Electoral Registration Officers. The ECI announced a nationwide special intensive revision starting with Bihar on June 24, and said it was needed due to 'significant change' in rolls since 2003, driven by urbanisation, migration for work and study, and voters registering at new addresses without deleting old ones, leading to duplicates. Officials also point to repeated complaints from political parties, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's allegation of manipulation in Maharashtra.
