Introduction

The definition of sedition is the conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch. Sedition is a crime under Section 124A in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 15th July 2021, the Supreme Court questioned the Central government asking whether the provision of Sedition in the Indian Penal Code is still required after 75 years of independence. This question was addressed by Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge bench to the Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who were appearing for the Centre. Chief Justice Ramana said that Sedition is a colonial law that suppresses freedom and was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. And it is a law prone to misuse by the government, so is it even necessary?
History

The Indian Penal Code came into force during the colonial Indian period, in 1860. But it did not have a section for sedition when it was introduced. Sedition was made part of the IPC in 1870 claiming that it got excluded from the original draft by mistake. The provision of sedition at that time was used by the British to hush the nationalists. This law was used against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first person to be accused and convicted under the law of sedition. He was charged with it because of his articles in Kesari, a Marathi newspaper. He was convicted in 1897 by the Bombay High Court for 18 months. But the interpretation of Section 124A was changed by the Federal Court in 1937.
The word “sedition” was removed from the draft Constitution because of an amendment moved by KM Munshi specifically for this reason. It was meant to be in the Constitution as a ground to impose restrictions on the constitutional freedom of speech and expression. So, when the Constitution was adopted, the word “sedition” was not in it but it stayed in the Indian Penal Code.
In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which came into force in 1974, during the Indira Gandhi government, sedition was made a cognizable offence, which means that the police can make arrests without warrants.
The Law

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code says Whoever 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, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Case Laws
In 1951, Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs The State, the Punjab High Court held that Section 124A was a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression and it invalidated the provision as it was in violation of a fundamental right. But because of this judgement, the Nehru government introduced Article 19(2) which gives the grounds on which the freedom of speech and expression can be restricted.
In 1954, Debi Soren & Ors vs The State, the Patna High Court upheld the validity of Section 124A. In 1958, the Allahabad High Court declared that Section 124A is void, in Ram Nandan vs The State. In the Kedar Nath case in 1962, a Constitution bench upheld the validity of Section 124A saying that the purpose of the crime was to save the government from being subverted.
In August 2018, the Law Commission of India said that sedition is essential to protect national integrity but it should not become a tool to restrict free speech.
Conclusion
It is clear that sedition came into existence because of the British. It was also removed from the Constitution as it was assumed to curb free speech yet it has still remained in the IPC and that is why the question is asked by Chief Justice Ramana. The law of sedition has been debated for a long time and has also been greatly criticized for its misuse. Hopefully this time the question will be answered properly and the debate will turn out differently.

You must be logged in to post a comment.