Why India at 75 is ready for a sedition-less future?
Recently, the Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has ignited a passionate debate during a preliminary hearing concerning whether “sedition” should be an offence at all
Sedition Law in India
- The law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860.
- Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen when it felt the need for a specific section to deal with the offence. It was one of the many draconian laws enacted to stifle any voices of dissent at that time.
- The term ‘sedition’ has been defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
- It is defined as an offence committed when "any person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India".
- Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section.
Why India needs a sedition-less future?
- Sedition restricts enjoyment of fundamental rights: The meandering meanings of expressions such as “disaffection” towards the government, “hatred”, “contempt” etc. constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
- Cognizable and non-bailable offence under sedition law: The law is exacerbated by harsh provisions that make seditious conduct both “cognizable” and “non-bailable” and punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
- Colonial-era law to suppress freedom fighters: The CJI argued that the sedition offence was being used by “the British to suppress the freedom” of legendary figures like “Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak”.
- The colonial administrators used sedition to lock up people who criticized the British policies.
- Lack of interpretation of sedition law: The disloyalty to a government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of the government, or its agencies.
- Judicial repeal of Section 124-A: The focus on the fact that neither the framers of the Constitution nor the authors of the amended Article 19(2) included “sedition” as a ground for “reasonable restriction” to freedom of speech and expression.
- Use of Sedition Law as means to achieve political end: It is being misused as a tool to persecute political dissent and a wide and concentrated executive discretion is inbuilt into it which permits the blatant abuse.
- Lack of support from Constituent Assembly to use sedition in Constitution: The Constituent Assembly did not agree to include sedition in the Constitution and the members felt it would curtail freedom of speech and expression.
- It is unfortunate that the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly not to have the provision of sedition in the Constitution got negated when the state retained it in the IPC.
Implication of Sedition Law
- India is being described as an elected autocracy: People surely will act in the letter and spirit of Ambedkar’s electrifying slogan, “Educate, Agitate and Organize”, notwithstanding the aggressive application of sedition charges to silence them.
- Sedition Law often used to stifle democracy: Such laws were abolished long ago in Britain and ironically, India is continuing with such laws, which were put in the Indian Penal Code by the British authorities when they were ruling India.
- Rapid increase in filing sedition cases: According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 47 cases of sedition were booked in 2014. The number of cases dropped to 30 in 2015, rose steadily to 35 in 2016 and to 51 in 2017, and jumped to 70 in 2018.
- Curb freedom of expression on social media: India is ranked 142 among 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index 2020.
- In its annual Freedom in the World report released on March 3, US-based NGO Freedom House downgraded India from the “free” to the “partially free” category.
- Simultaneous use of Sedition and Anti-national: In today’s media discourse, the term “sedition” is often translated as desh-droh or opposition to the nation which has led to a conflation of the terms “seditious” and “anti-national” in the popular imagination.
- Undermine Right to Dissent: The chilling effect of these laws threatens to undermine, and gradually destroy, the legitimate and constitutionally protected right to protest, dissent or criticize the government.
- The enforcement or the threat of invocation of sedition constitutes an insidious form of unauthorized self-censorship by producing a chilling effect on the exercise of one’s fundamental right to free speech and expression.
- Judicial process is too slow: India's slow moving judicial system ensures prolonged delays in disposing cases.
- The people charged with sedition have to surrender their passports, are not eligible for government jobs, must produce themselves in the court as and when required, and spend money on legal fees.
How India is ready for a sedition-less future?
- Right to question, criticize and change rulers: It is very fundamental to the idea of democracy because criticism of the government is an important tool of a vibrant democracy.
- It should not be considered as sedition.
- Implementation of laws curbing unlawful acts: The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act has provisions that penalize "disrupting the public order" or "overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means" is sufficient for protecting the national integrity.
- The creation of any “public disorder” or “disturbance of public tranquility” is already upheld as a reasonable restriction in other draconian collective security laws in the State’s arsenal.
- Dissent and criticism make the democracy robust: The legal experts say that the sedition law has no place in a democracy as the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- Intervention from Judiciary: The top court must make it compulsory for the authorities to "produce a reasoned order" from the local chief of police certifying that the seditious act could either lead to incitement of violence or could lead to public disorder, before any police complaint or arrest can be made.
Road ahead
- The attorney general of India has observed that the most immediate step is to forbid rampant private complaints by citizens and authorize only very senior police officials to take appropriate action.
- The apex court has directed the Government of India Press, on the pain of sanction, not to publish the voided sections of the law, or provisions which are read down.
- The political executive and law enforcement officials must take most seriously the judicial directions reading down the criminal statutes.
- The foundational maxim that the mere possibility of abuse is no ground for the denial of power may only remain in place if the SC adopts the path of denying constitutional validity to the offence of “sedition”.
- It is important to note that India needs to progress in the field of human rights and be a shining example of an effective, vibrant democracy, then the voice of the people can never be stifled.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies