LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday allowed an opportunity to the federal government to file a reply to a petition seeking a declaration that section 124-A of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which deals with offence of sedition, was in contradiction with the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution.

Justice Muhammad Shan Gul took up a petition filed by Ammar Ali Jan, a students` rights activist,which also questioned legality of an FIR lodged against him and others mainly under the impugned section of the PPC for holding `Student Solidarity March` on the Mall Road in 2020.

Senior lawyers Abid Saqi and Asad Jamal appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Deputy Attorney General Nasar Ahmad represented the federal government.

The court had already issued notices to the respondents in 2020, however, the law officer sought more time to submit a reply onbehalf of the government. The judge allowed the request and adjourned the hearing for a date tobeñxedbythe ofñce.

The petition stated that the law of sedition originally was drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historianpolitician, but was omitted when the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. Thereafter, in 1870, it said, the same was inserted in Indian Penal Code, 1860 through Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870 by James Stephen when the colonial mas-ters felt the need to perpetuate their imperial rule.

The petition pointed out that it was one of the many draconian laws brought into force to suppress any voices of dissent at that time.

It submitted that the law of sedition as contained in section 124-A PPC was a residue and relic of oppressive colonial legacy which had been introduced to rule the subjects not citizens.

Therefore, it said, the provisions of section 124-A PPC were repugnant to the constitutional guarantees including freedom of speech,movement, assembly, association and of expression provided under Articles 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Constitution. It pleaded that the impugned section be declared void and ultra vires being inconsistent with and in derogation of fundamental rights in view of the mandate of Article 8 of the Constitution.

The petition further asked the court to quash the FIR registered by the Civil Lines police against the petitioner and other participants in the peaceful march for being unlawful.