Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 426

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
S. G. Vombatkere – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Shyam Divan, Prashant Kumar, Anubhav Kumar, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Riya Seth, Varun Chandiok, Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Prashant Bhushan, Arun Shourie, In-person Rahul Gupta, Alice Raj, Kapil Sibal, P.B. Suresh, Prasanna S., Nizam Pasha, Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Agnish Aditya, Ms. Swati Arya, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Chitranshul Singh, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Shrutanjaya Bharadwaj, Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Ms. Shivani Vij, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Pratul Pratap Singh, Salman Khurshid, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Tauqeer Ahmad Khan, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Ms. Aadya Mishra, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Karishma Maria, Satwik Parikh, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Aakarsh Kamra, Chandar Uday Singh, Rahul Narayan, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Abhinav Sekhri, Apar Gupta, Tanmay Singh, Krishnesh Bapat, Ms. Anandita Mishra, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Ms. Amala Dasarath, Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Tushar Mehta, SG K.M. Nataraj, ASG N. Venkatraman, ASG K.M. Nataraj, ASG. Suryaprakash V.Raju, ASG Rajat Nair, Kanu Agrawal, Shantnu Sharma, Ms. Deepaabali Datta, Madhav Sinhal, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Balaji Srinivasan, Siddhant Kohli, K. Parameshwar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das, (N.P.) Kaleeswaram Raj, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Thulasi K. Raj, Nishe Rajen Shonker, P.V. Surendra Nath, Subhash Chandran K.R., Ms. Yogamaya M.G., Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Arvind Datar, Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Rahul Bhatia, Rahul Unnikrishnan, Harshvardhan Kotla Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Rohan J. Alva, Namit Saxena, Sharath Chandran, Awnish Maithani, Sudhanshu Chandra, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

What is the constitutional status and necessity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) as examined by the Supreme Court?

ORDER

1. These petitions are filed challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter IPC) relating to the offence of Sedition.

2. Having heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the documents available on record, we may observe that this matter was listed for the first time on 15.07.2021. Thereinafter, this Court, after hearing the parties, issued notice on 27.04.2022. When this matter was next taken up, learned Solicitor General of India prayed for additional time of 2 to 3 days for filing of counter-affidavit. Accordingly, time was granted till the end of the week for filing counter-affidavit. Again, the matter was listed on 05.05.2022, wherein the Solicitor General again sought additional time to file a counter affidavit. On that date, this Court while granting the Solicitor General time to file counter affidavit, directed the parties to file their written submissions on the preliminary issue of the necessity of reference to a larger bench prior to the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, on 07.05.2022, written submissions were filed on behalf of Solicitor General of India.

4. On 09.05.2022, an affidavit was fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 426

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLIS. G. Vombatkere – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

What is the constitutional status and necessity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) as examined by the Supreme Court?

N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
S. G. Vombatkere – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent