GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Issues Arising Out of Design & Implementation of Policies, Government Policies & Interventions
Source: TH
Context: The Law Commission Chairman, Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, argues that retaining the sedition law is necessary to safeguard the unity and integrity of India, citing the current situation in various regions.
- Recently, the 279th report of the Law Commission of India has recommended the retention of the 153-year-old colonial law on sedition in India.
What is Sedition?
According to the Section 124A of IPC, Sedition is an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise.
History:
- Drafted by TB Macaulay and included in the IPC in 1870, Colonial administrators used sedition to lock up people who criticised the British policies.
- Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, etc., were convicted for their “seditious” speeches, writings and activities under British rule.
Views by Supreme Court:
- In 1962, the Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of Section 124A in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar.
- It upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but limited its application to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”.
- It distinguished these from “very strong speech” or the use of “vigorous words” strongly critical of the government.
- In 1995, the Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, held that mere sloganeering which evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.
- SC (in July 2021): The court ruled that “a statute criminalizing expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”.
- In 2022, the SC effectively put on hold the colonial-era penal provision and asked the Centre/states to desist from arresting/prosecuting people under the contentious provision.
Sedition law is relevant for India:
- Threats to the unity and integrity of the nation due to the presence of anti-national elements and divisive Forces such as naxals, terrorists and separatists who are receiving support from inside and outside the country.
- Mere misuse cannot be a ground for repeal, rather provisions should be made where such misuse is eliminated.
- No other law covers sedition: Special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act operate in different fields and do not cover the offence of sedition and therefore, the specific law on sedition is therefore needed.
- Not really a draconian law: Now after the Supreme Court’s directions, its jurisdiction has been narrowed down. It can be applied only on grounds laid down by the court.
- Application is a part of reasonable restrictions: It is provided under Article 19 (2).
- Does not really curb free speech: One can use any kind of strong language in criticism of the government without inviting sedition. However, such dissent should not be turned into some kind of persuasion to break the country.
- Jurisdictions like the US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc., have actually merged their sedition law with counter-terror legislation.
Issues with the Sedition Law in India:
- Against democratic norms: It stifles the democratic and fundamental right (Article 19(1)(a)) of people to criticize the government. It leads to a sort of unauthorised self-censorship, for it produces a chilling effect on free speech.
- It suppresses what every citizen ought to do in a democracy — raise questions, debate, disagree and challenge the government’s decisions.
- Sedition systematically destroys the soul of Gandhi’s philosophy that is, the right to dissent.
- Inadequate capacity of State Machinery: The police might not have the “requisite” training to understand the consequences of imposing such a “stringent” provision.
- Possibility of Misuse: It has been used arbitrarily to curb dissent. In many cases, the main targets have been writers, journalists, activists who question government policy and projects, and political dissenters. E.g. Vinod Dua v Union of India
- Low conviction: Charge sheets were filed only in a tiny percentage of cases and not more than a handful ended in convictions upheld by the higher courts.
- Strong deterrent effect on dissent: The draconian nature of this law as the crime is non-bailable, non-cognisable and punishment can extend for life—it has a strong deterrent effect on dissent even if it is not used.
- Used to gag press: The press should be protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.
Safeguards recommended by the Law Commission:
- The preliminary inquiry will be held by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above.
- The inquiry will be done within seven days from the occurrence of the incident
- The preliminary inquiry report will be submitted to the competent government authority for permission for lodging of FIR
- On the basis of the preliminary report, if the competent government authority finds any cogent evidence with regard to the commissioning of the offence of sedition, it may grant permission to lodge an FIR under Section 124 A of the IPC
Recent examples of misuse of Sedition law
In February 2021, the Supreme Court protected a political leader and six senior journalists from arrest in sedition cases related to their tweets and sharing unverified news. In June 2021, the court also emphasized the need to define the limits of sedition while protecting two Telugu news channels from coercive action by the Andhra Pradesh government. Recently, human rights activists in the northeast have raised concern over the misuse of Sedition law to curb protests in Mizoram.
Conclusion
The guidelines of the SC must be incorporated in Section 124A as well by amendment to IPC so that any ambiguity must be removed. Only those actions/words that directly result in the use of violence or incitement to violence should be termed seditious.
Insta Links:
Mains Links:
The imposition of the Sedition law in India has been a subject of significant controversy and debate. (250 Words)
