Law panel chief for sedition law relook

Newly-appointed Law Commission chairman Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan on Tuesday said that the sedition law, which has come under focus after the JNU row, needs “reconsideration”. He, however, asserted that the panel will not jump to any conclusion before hearing out stakeholders.

“Actually it (sedition law) requires reconsideration. We do not know what is the problem, what are the difficulties. We will hear all the stakeholders, consult criminal lawyers,” the former Supreme Court judge told agencies.

“Why it requires reconsideration, whether there is any need of change of definition. And only then we will make a report. We cannot jump to any conclusion,” he said.

Outlining the priorities for the recently-reconstituted 21st Law Commission, he said the Commission would be coming out with the report on comprehensive review of the criminal justice system which would include a relook at the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) and the Evidence Act. While the IPC and CrPC are handled by the Union home ministry, the Evidence Act comes under the domain of the law and justice ministry.

Mr Chauhan told agencies that the government has given the Commission a list of issues for its consideration, including hate speech, live-in relations, rights of victims and “comprehensive review” of the criminal justice system. The issue of sedition law, which was part of the government’s effort to review the criminal justice system, was referred to the 20th Law Commission headed by Justice A.P. Shah in 2012. However, the previous Commission could not submit a report on the issue.

Against the backdrop of the JNU students’ union president’s arrest, the government had earlier this month acknowledged in the Rajya Sabha that the definition of sedition law is “very wide”.

Home minister Rajnath Singh had agreed to an all-party meeting to discuss the issue after the Law Commission submits its report on sedition law. The government had rejected Opposition charge that it was rampantly using the law, contending that except the one case of JNU, sedition cases have mostly been registered outside Delhi.