Akhil Gogoi, an activist-turned-politician and Member of the Assam Legislative Assembly, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of sedition. Gogoi argues that the sedition law, along with related offences that employ similar logic, violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as well as Articles 14 and 21.
Gogoi, who represents Sibsagar in the state legislative assembly and is the president of the Raijor Dal, has been involved in anti-government protests, particularly against the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. In 2019, he was arrested and charged with sedition, criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity between different communities, and making assertions prejudicial to national integration. The allegations against him pertain to his critical speeches and political actions, but not any acts of violence.
According to Gogoi's petition, his dissenting speeches critical of government policies, particularly the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, are often perceived as part of a larger conspiracy. He argues that misdemeanors and other IPC offenses are unfairly equated with terrorist activities under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Gogoi maintains that his protests were peaceful expressions of democratic rights and that there is no evidence to support the charge that he intended to threaten the unity, integrity, and security of the country.
The petition relies on a 2022 Supreme Court order that put the sedition law on hold until the government reconsiders its provisions. Gogoi argues that the order applies not only to the offence of sedition itself but also to other sections that share its constitutional flaws. He seeks a stay on the ongoing proceedings against him under Section 124A pending the court's decision on the constitutionality of the provision.
Gogoi's plea highlights the need to protect political criticism and speech acts from criminalization, particularly when directed at the government and its policies. He emphasizes that he has not engaged in violence and that his speeches are political acts of critique falling within the purview of Section 124A.
The Supreme Court's verdict on the writ petition will have significant implications for the interpretation and application of the sedition law in India.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
