SC Wants Response On Sedition Law By May 10, “Is Contrary To The Idea Of Free India”Sibal Says Sibal

New Delhi, May 5 : The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and other parties to file their affidavits between Saturday and Monday for further hearing on May 10 on referring cases against the sedition law to a larger bench of five or seven judges. “Both sides have to file their written submissions by Saturday while the Centre needs to file its counter affidavit on merit by Monday,” a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court that every day a journalist or anyone else spends in jail due to sedition law is contrary to the idea of free India. “Your Lordships can refer it to a seven-judge Bench,” Sibal told the apex Court. He added that the law pertaining to 124-A was unconstitutional. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, said the government’s response would not have a bearing on what the petitioners argue, it would be a much more holistic view. Mehta said the draft response on sedition law has been prepared by lawyers and it needed to be approved by competent authority and sought an adjournment of the hearing. The Supreme Court said it will hear the matter on May 10 as to whether the petitions challenging the constitutionality of sedition law be referred to a larger bench for reconsidering the earlier 5-judge bench verdict in Kedar Nath Singh against State of Bihar judgment. Mehta said: “I am conscious we (Central government) were directed to file a reply in the sedition issue and there were two reasons why we didn’t file the reply. “We are waiting for an approval of the competent authority, that’s why this delay,” he said. Attorney General K K Venugopal said it was up to the apex court to decide for giving a date. “In my opinion, the sedition law must be there and it should be retained and the law should not be misused and the Supreme Court should pass a guideline regarding the sedition law,” he said. The Bench asked Venugopal if he wanted the laws diluted. To this, he replied: “I had said that the laws should be taken care of … and it should not be misused.”