S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India
S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India (2022)
1. Background
Section 124A IPC (Sedition) criminalises any words/signs/acts that bring or attempt to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the Government.
Punishment: Life imprisonment or up to 3 years + fine.
This law has been controversial because it is often alleged to be misused to curb free speech.
Petitioner:
Retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere (along with journalists, activists, etc.) challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC.
Argument: The provision is vague, overbroad, and against fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech).
2. Issues Raised
Whether Section 124A IPC (Sedition) violates freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
Whether the restriction imposed by sedition law is reasonable under Article 19(2) (security of state, public order, etc.).
Whether earlier judgments (esp. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962) upholding sedition need to be reconsidered.
3. Court’s Observations
The Union Government itself filed an affidavit saying it was reviewing the law in the spirit of “Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav”.
Court noted:
Misuse of sedition law is rampant.
Citizens have been wrongly prosecuted for criticising the government.
Need to protect freedom of speech in a democracy.
4. Supreme Court’s Order (May 11, 2022)
The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 124A immediately but gave an interim order:
Kept Section 124A (sedition) in abeyance (suspended) until government re-examines it.
No new FIRs to be registered under sedition law.
Ongoing cases under 124A to be kept in abeyance.
People already charged could apply for bail or relief.
👉 Effect: Sedition law became non-operational from May 2022 unless Parliament re-enacts it with modifications.
5. Relation with Earlier Case Laws
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962, AIR 955)
Constitutionality of Section 124A was upheld but restricted only to acts involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995 AIR 1785)
Mere casual slogans (“Khalistan Zindabad”) not amounting to violence ≠ Sedition.
Indira Das v. State of Assam (2011 3 SCC 380)
Laws restricting speech must strictly comply with Article 19(2) safeguards.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015 5 SCC 1)
Struck down Sec. 66A IT Act for being vague & overbroad; principle applied to sedition challenges too.
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)
Put sedition law in suspension pending reconsideration by legislature.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) |
| Provision Challenged | Section 124A IPC (Sedition) |
| Issue | Whether sedition violates Article 19(1)(a) and exceeds reasonable restrictions under 19(2) |
| Court’s View | Law is widely misused; needs reconsideration |
| Interim Order | Section 124A kept in abeyance; no new FIRs; pending cases paused |
| Key Related Cases | Kedar Nath Singh (1962), Balwant Singh (1995), Indira Das (2011), Shreya Singhal (2015) |
✅ In short:
The S.G. Vombatkere case (2022) suspended the operation of sedition law in India, recognising its misuse and chilling effect on free speech. Final constitutional validity is still pending Parliamentary/SC decision, but practically 124A IPC is non-functional since May 2022.
RELATED Blog
0 comments