SC has already decided on constitutional validity of sedition charge, this Court has no power to go beyond it: High Court

Read Order: Haryana Progressive Farmers Union v. Union of India and others 

Vivek Gupta 

Chandigarh, August 3, 2021: Dismissing the petition filed by a farmers’ group challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition charge or Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the  Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the constitutional validity of the law has already been upheld by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar. 

“The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is final and binding on this Court and this Court has no power to go beyond the said judgement and examine the validity of the provision which has already been upheld by the Supreme Court,” held the bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli. 

The bench further said that the persons against whom the said charge has been imposed are not the petitioners before the High Court. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said persons have authorized the Petitioner to act on their behalf. The petition has not been filed in public interest either, the bench held.

The bench in its order also recorded the statement of Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General, as well as Deepak Balyan, lAdditional Advocate General, Haryana, who submitted that writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme  Court in which the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged and the same are pending before the Supreme Court. 

“In the wake of the above, we are choiceless, but to dismiss the petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted a certificate in terms of Article 134A of the Constitution of India to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, in the given circumstances and as the matter involving similar issues is already pending before the Supreme Court, in our view, the prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner is apparently mis-conceived and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner, however, may join the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, if so advised,” stated the bench. 

The bench passed this order on the petition of Haryana Progressive Farmers Union which had moved the petition in the wake of registration of a case against 100 farmers on 11 July for protesting against the Speaker of the Haryana Legislative Assembly in the state’s Sirsa district. 

The petitioner further prayed for quashing and deleting Sections 124-A and 307 from the FIR filed against the farmers under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 323, 332, 341, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa. 

The bench noted that at the very outset, the persons against whom the FIR has been registered are not the petitioners before the High Court. 

“There is nothing on record to indicate that the said persons have authorized the Petitioner to act on their behalf. The petition has not been filed in public Interest either. Not just that, the petitioner : Haryana Progressive Farmers Union is alleged to be a group of advocates formed by the farmers of various Districts in Haryana for the welfare of farmers, whereas the resolution dated 05.05.2019 reveals that a public charitable trust (Sabka Mangal Ho) purports to have formed the Haryana Progressive Farmers Union “as an advocacy group of the Trust,” the HC said.