New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday agreed to examine a plea filed by former head of the banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Safdar Hussain Nagori, seeking clarification or permission for the Madhya Pradesh High Court to proceed with final adjudication of his criminal appeal involving sedition charges.
As per the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the apex court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has completed final hearing in the criminal appeal but has kept further proceedings in abeyance in view of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Colonial-era penal provision of Sedition (Section 124-A IPC).
Since conviction under Section 124-A forms the basis of life sentence, its adjudication is essential and cannot be separated without prejudice, contended the SLP, adding that the petitioner – who has already undergone nearly 18 years in custody – can be released only if the criminal appeal pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court rules on the correctness of the conviction under Section 124-A.
The plea sought a clarification or permission for the Madhya Pradesh High Court to proceed with final adjudication of the appeal, including on Section 124-A IPC.
Issuing a notice on the SLP filed through advocate Yashwant Singh, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R Mahadevan of the apex court listed the matter for further hearing in the second week of July, 2025.
Earlier in 2017, the trial court had convicted Safdar Nagori and sentenced him to life imprisonment for offences under IPC Sections 122 (waging war against the government of India), 124-A (sedition), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act, and the Arms Act.
The Supreme Court, in a pathbreaking order passed in May 2022, had directed the Centre and all state governments to refrain from registering any FIR or taking any coercive measures, while suspending all continuing investigations in relation to Section 124A, and also directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings be kept in abeyance.
The top court, in its prima facie observation, had said the rigours of Section 124A were not in tune with the current social milieu and were intended for a time when the country was under a colonial regime.
It had opined that its earlier judgment rendered in the Kedar Nath case, upholding the constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC, requires a reconsideration by a larger Bench of a minimum of five judges.
IANS
