TMC leader Mahua Moitra, who has been at the forefront of fighting the sedition law, says the BJP-led Centre is unlikely to revoke the legislation and may instead amend it.
The TMC MP’s comment came one day after the Supreme Court in a landmark order on Wednesday put on hold the controversial sedition law until the Centre completes a promised review of the colonial relic and also asked the central and state governments not to register any new cases invoking the act.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has directed that all investigations, pending trials, and all proceedings under the sedition law in the country be put on hold.
Those incarcerated on sedition charges can apply for bail, it said.
Moitra, who had been one of the writ petitioners in the case, remarked that if the Centre had been serious about reconsidering the law, it could have done so in the last eight years.
In addition, the TMC MP says the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act should be repealed because it is draconian.
This is a fantastic verdict, I am very happy. It’s not my fight or yours. It’s the victory of Indian constitutional democracy. A sedition law from the colonial era, which was meant to stifle Indian voices, should not be tolerated in any civilized society.
An elected Indian government cannot muzzle the voices of its citizens today,” she told PTI in a telephone interview.
Moitra, one of the petitioners who had challenged the sedition law, said there were reasonable restrictions regarding its use, which have now “gone for a toss under the present regime.”
The government claims they will put reasonable restrictions, but they already have them. It didn’t stop them from charging Munawar Faruqui with sedition or arresting Siddique Kappan… there are 13,000 cases like that in the country,” she said.
The TMC MP said that the Centre may be using the term reconsider because there is a chance to amend the law instead of revoking it.
A sedition law allows authorities to arrest people without a warrant because the government does not like dissent, comedy, or free opposition, so it is a great tool,” she said. *If they wanted to abolish it, they could have used the term revoke. Eight years ago, they could have done it.