In a recent development, the Supreme Court has announced its decision to hear a series of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition provision in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in January. This move follows the introduction of bills by the Centre in Parliament, aiming to replace the outdated colonial-era penal statutes. Among the proposed changes is the repeal of the contentious sedition law.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has expressed his intent to form an appropriate bench to address the matter. As part of the preparations for the upcoming hearing, advocates Prasanna S and Pooja Dhar have been appointed as nodal counsel. Their role is to facilitate the compilation of case laws and other relevant statutory material.

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code addresses the crime of sedition, which involves engaging in acts or attempts to generate hatred or contempt against the government, with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. It was incorporated into the penal code in 1890. This happened 57 years before India gained independence and nearly 30 years after the IPC itself was enacted.

The supreme court, in a decision on May 11 of the previous year, suspended the sedition law until an "appropriate" government body could review it. The court instructed both the central and state governments not to file any new First Information Reports (FIRs) using this provision during this period. In addition to the suspension of filing First Information Reports (FIRs), the court declared that all investigations, trials in progress, and other legal proceedings related to the sedition law throughout the country would also be temporarily halted.

The decision to revisit the constitutional validity of the sedition law marks a significant development in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding freedom of expression and the need to reassess archaic legal frameworks. The outcome of the Supreme Court's review will likely have far-reaching implications on the legal landscape in India.