Arun Jaitley has misled Parliament on Kedar Nath sedition ruling of the Supreme Court #JNU

Arun Jaitley has just misled Parliament on what the Supreme Court did in Kedar Nath in 1962. He stated that the Court upheld the conviction of all the appellants under 124A IPC. 

Actually the Supreme Court did the following: 

"It has not been contended before us on behalf of the appellant in C.A. 169 of 1957 or on behalf of the respondents in the other appeals (No. 124- 126 of 1958) that the words used by them did not come within the purview of the definition of sedition as interpreted by us. No arguments were advanced before us to show that even on the interpretation given by us their cases did not come within the mischief of the one or the other section, as the case may be. It follows, therefore, that the Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957 has to be dismissed. Criminal Appeals 124-126 of 1958 will be remanded to the High Court to pass such order as it thinks fit and proper in the light of the interpretation given by us.

Appeal No. 169 of 1957 dismissed.

Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958 allowed."

In Kedar Nath, Appeal 169 of 1957 was dismissed only because it was not even argued that the facts did not fall within 124A. That appeal was limited only to the challenge to the Constitutionality of 124A. 

Appeals 124 to 126 of 1958 were allowed and the High Court was directed to re-examine the conviction in light of the narrow interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Section 124A. 

So Arun Jaitley has clearly misled Parliament by stating that in Kedar Nath the Supreme Court 'found' that the slogans mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Kedar Nath decision were seditious. This is incorrect and Arun Jaitley is misleading Parliament. The Supreme Court did not even consider the nature of the slogans and did not consider the question as to whether those slogans were seditious. This because the only ground of appeal taken in Appeal No. 169 of 1957 was that Section 124A was unconstitutional. The point as to whether these slogans fell within the ambit of 124A was neither argued nor decided before the Supreme Court.