The Supreme Court on Monday said it would revisit the constitutional validity of the sedition law and its application to media houses and journalists in the wake of rising instances of states indiscriminately using the colonial-era legislation under IPC Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 505 (public mischief).

“It’s time we define the sedition law…” a bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat said while issuing notice on the sedition and other cases registered by the Andhra Pradesh government against two television channels — TV5 and ABN — for airing the views of a Lok Sabha MP critical of chief minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy.

Justice Chandrachud during the course of the hearing also sarcastically remarked: “A news report yesterday showed that dead bodies were being thrown in the river. I don’t know if a sedition case has been filed against the news channel yet or not.”

While under Section 124A, an accused can be sentenced to life imprisonment, under the other two provisions, a person can face imprisonment up to three years.

The bench, after hearing senior counsel Shyam Divan and Sidharth Luthra appearing for the two channels, passed the following order: “….The gravamen of the allegation against the news channels arises from certain programmes which have been broadcast by them. During the programmes, Mr Raghurama Krishnam Raju, member of Parliament is alleged to have expressed views critical of the state government and the chief minister. Besides Mr Raju, who has been named as the first accused, TV5 and ABN have been named as the second and third accused.

“Mr Shyam Divan and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, have submitted that the FIR constitutes an attempt to muzzle the electronic media and is an assault on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It has been submitted that, read as they stand, the allegations in the FIR do not establish any offences under the provisions which have been invoked against them.

‘The jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 has been invoked on the ground that while dealing with the suo motu Covid-19 case 1, this court in its order dated April 30, 2021, has made categoric observations in regard to the need for restraint on the invocation of the coercive arm of the law against persons voicing comments critical to matters of governance which arise in the context of the Covid crisis. The member of Parliament has been granted bail by the court.

“Having heard learned counsel, we are of the view that the ambit and parameters of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news, information and the rights, even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation.”

The bench issued notice to the government to reply within six weeks.

YSR Congress MP Raju, who was earlier granted bail by the apex court, had alleged that he was subjected to third-degree torture by the state police for his critical views against the chief minister and for seeking cancellation of Jagan’s bail in a corruption related case.

The court passed the order on Monday after the two regional channels challenged the FIR registered against them on May 14 under the IPC Sections 124, 153A, 505 and Section 120B based on an inquiry report of the deputy inspector-general, CID.