SC TO DECIDE IF SEDITION CONVICTION APPEALS CAN PROCEED DESPITE SECTION 124A STAY:

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a critical legal question surrounding the application of its 2022 interim order that effectively put sedition law proceedings on hold. Specifically, the Court will consider whether the stay on trials and appeals under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—the law on sedition—also prohibits High Courts from delivering judgments in appeals against sedition convictions that have already been fully argued.

This development arose in the context of a special leave petition filed by Safdar Nagori, who was convicted under Section 124A IPC and other provisions in 2017 and has since been incarcerated for over 18 years. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan issued notice in the matter and agreed to hear the petition, which challenges a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Although the High Court had heard Nagori's appeal against his conviction in full, it declined to deliver a judgment, citing the Supreme Court’s May 2022 interim order in the case of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India.

The order in Vombatkere had directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings involving charges under Section 124A IPC be kept in abeyance while the constitutional validity of the sedition law is being re-examined. Paragraph 8(d) of the order explicitly states that all such proceedings “be kept in abeyance,” creating a broad freeze on judicial action involving Section 124A.

Appearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat argued on behalf of Nagori that the stay issued in Vombatkere was not intended to encompass appeals that had already been heard and were merely awaiting judgment. He emphasized that in his client’s case, the only charge under appeal is the sedition conviction, as Nagori had already served the sentence for the other charges included in his conviction. According to Mr. Farasat, the High Court’s refusal to pronounce judgment, despite having completed hearings, has created a legal and constitutional dilemma.

He contended that the interim order in Vombatkere should not be interpreted so rigidly as to suspend the rights of individuals to appellate relief, particularly in cases where all substantive legal arguments have already been presented. The continuing incarceration of individuals like Nagori, he argued, directly impacts the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He urged the Supreme Court to clarify the extent and scope of the 2022 stay, especially in cases where no further investigation or trial is pending and where the court is in a position to deliver a final verdict based on an already completed hearing.

Taking cognizance of these submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice in the case and directed that the matter be listed before an appropriate bench on July 25, 2025. The listing is subject to administrative directions from the Chief Justice of India. The decision in this matter could have far-reaching implications for several pending appeals and trials involving sedition charges across the country, especially for individuals who remain behind bars without final adjudication of their legal remedies.