HC Petition Challenges Constitutionality of Sedition Law
A Supreme Court lawyer on Tuesday filed a public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition before the High Court, challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Penal Code, 1860, which relates to the offence of sedition.
The petition was filed by lawyer Ishrat Hasan, who argued that the provision criminalises spoken or written words, signs, images, or any other acts that create hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government established by law. The offence carries punishments ranging from a monetary fine to life imprisonment.
In her petition, Ishrat Hasan contended that Section 124A imposes unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 39 of the Constitution.
She further argued that the terms “disaffection,” “hatred,” and “contempt” are vague and undefined, which allows arbitrary application of the law and violates the right to protection of law under Article 31 of the Constitution.
The petition also stated that the provision enables selective and politically motivated prosecution, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 27.
According to the petitioner, the continued existence and application of Section 124A discourage citizens from lawful expression and create a chilling effect on fundamental rights.
She additionally argued that the severity of the punishment, including life imprisonment, is grossly disproportionate, excessive, and arbitrary, and therefore violates Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
