The Supreme Court of India, on July 3, 2025, issued a notice to the Madhya Pradesh government in response to a plea filed by Safdar Nagori, the former chief of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). Nagori, convicted in 2017 for sedition and other charges, is seeking clarification on whether his appeal against the conviction can proceed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, given the ongoing legal ambiguity surrounding India’s sedition law.
Nagori, arrested in 2008, was sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in Madhya Pradesh for multiple charges, including sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, waging war against the state, promoting enmity between groups, and violations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). His appeal, filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has been stalled due to the Supreme Court’s May 2022 order, which stayed all proceedings related to sedition cases pending a review of the constitutionality of Section 124A. This stay has created uncertainty about whether appeals in sedition cases can move forward in lower courts.
The plea before the Supreme Court, heard by a bench comprising Justices A and B (names not specified in available records), highlighted the procedural limbo affecting Nagori’s case. Nagori’s legal team argued that the 2022 stay order has inadvertently delayed justice by preventing the High Court from adjudicating his appeal. They sought explicit directions from the Supreme Court to clarify whether the High Court can proceed with the appeal despite the ongoing suspension of sedition-related proceedings.
The Supreme Court, acknowledging the complexity of the issue, noted that a two-judge bench could not issue clarifications on a prior order passed by a three-judge bench in May 2022. Consequently, the court issued a notice to the Madhya Pradesh government, directing it to file a response within a stipulated timeframe. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in the second week of July 2025, when the court will likely address the broader implications of the sedition law’s suspension on pending appeals.
Background of the Case
Safdar Nagori, once a prominent figure in SIMI, was arrested in March 2008 in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, following allegations of orchestrating anti-national activities. SIMI, banned under the UAPA in 2001 for its alleged involvement in extremist activities, was accused of promoting ideologies that threatened India’s sovereignty and communal harmony. Nagori’s 2017 conviction stemmed from evidence linking him to activities such as organizing terror training camps and inciting violence, charges that he and his legal team have consistently disputed.
The sedition charge under Section 124A, which pertains to acts aimed at exciting disaffection against the government, has been a contentious issue in India. Critics argue that the colonial-era law is often misused to suppress dissent, while the government maintains it is necessary to protect national security. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to stay sedition proceedings came in response to multiple petitions challenging the law’s validity, with the court urging the Union government to reconsider its provisions. The Union government, in its affidavit, has indicated that it is reviewing the law, but no final decision has been made as of July 2025.
Implications of the Stay on Sedition Cases
The Supreme Court’s 2022 order has had a ripple effect on numerous cases across India, including Nagori’s. Legal experts note that the stay has created a judicial bottleneck, leaving many appellants, like Nagori, in a state of uncertainty. While the stay prevents new sedition cases from being filed, it has also led to the deferral of appeals and trials in existing cases, raising questions about the right to a speedy trial.
Nagori’s plea underscores a critical issue: the lack of clarity on how courts should handle appeals in cases where sedition is one of multiple charges. His conviction includes offenses under the UAPA and other sections of the IPC, which are unaffected by the sedition stay, complicating the High Court’s ability to proceed without specific guidance from the Supreme Court.
Reactions and Next Steps
Legal scholars and human rights advocates have been closely watching the case, viewing it as a potential litmus test for the judiciary’s approach to balancing national security concerns with individual rights. Some argue that the prolonged delay in resolving the sedition law’s status reflects broader challenges in India’s legal system, particularly regarding outdated laws and their application in modern contexts.
The Madhya Pradesh government is expected to submit its response before the next hearing, outlining its stance on whether the High Court should proceed with Nagori’s appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter could set a precedent for other pending sedition cases, potentially influencing the trajectory of the ongoing review of Section 124A.
As the case progresses, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s handling of this complex issue, which sits at the intersection of free speech, national security, and judicial efficiency. The hearing in mid-July 2025 is anticipated to provide further clarity, not only for Nagori but also for the broader legal landscape surrounding sedition in India.
Please Click Here to Join Our WhatsApp Channel For Latest Updates & News
You Might Also Like :
Kate Middleton’s Heartfelt Message on World Cancer Day After Shocking Health Battle
Journalist Imran Riaz Flees Pakistan, Allegedly Disguises Himself to Escape Intelligence Agencies
