The government said the judgment settled the ques­ tion of law and applicability of Section 124A and needed no further reference to a larger Bench now. The Centre’s note, settled by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and drafted by the Centre’s panel counsel Kanu Agrawal, comes amid de­ bate before a three­judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana on whether the sedition law in the background of what is said in the Kedar Nath ver­ dict needs to be referred to a five­ or seven­judge Bench for a re­look. A clutch of petitions by senior journalists and pro­ minent bodies and perso­ nalities, represented by se­ nior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vipin Nair, has chal­ lenged the legality of the co­ lonial law. They have argued that the law of sedition is be­ ing rampantly misused by the government to curb fun­ damental rights of life, dig­ nity, personal liberty, and the freedoms to protest and dissent. Mr. Sibal has argued that there has been a “sea change” in the law post the 1962 case law. He had re­ minded in court that “the British have left the country. We are a democracy now and masters of our own fate. We have a right to protest”. Mr. Sibal had said the Ke- dar Nath judgment had only covered how sedition affect­ ed free speech and expres­ sion enshrined in Article 19and did not touch upon how the provision would snuff out the right to life (Article 21) and right to equal treatment (Article 14). But the government countered that a Constitu­ tion Bench considers a law, and in this case Section 124A, from all perspectives, including its impact on Arti­ cles 14, 19 and 21. “Merely because Article 14 and 21 are not mentioned, would not undermine its fi­ nal judicial conclusion. The five­judge Bench read down Section 124A only to bring it in conformity with Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitu­ tion. No reference, there­ fore, would be necessary nor can the three­Judge Bench once again examine the constitutional validity of the very same provision,” the government submis­ sions in court argued. The government said the ratio and logic of the Kedar Nath judgment was tested and applied successfully in several cases, including in the recent Vinod Dua case, in which the senior journal­ ist was booked for sedition for his social media activity. The government said that in case the three­judge Bench wants to reconsider the ratio of the Kedar Nath judgment, it would be “ab­ solutely necessary” for it to “first to record its satisfac­ tion that the ratio in Kedar Nath Singh is so patently wrong that it needs recon­ sideration by a larger Bench.