Tag: Freedom of speech

Sedition

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.

References

FIRs Under Struck Down Section 66A IT Act

Introduction

On 5th July 2021, the Supreme Court expressed their shock at the practice of police registering FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2015 judgement in the case of Shreya Singhal. An application filed by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) was being heard by a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman. The application sought directions and guidelines against the FIRs which were being filed under Section 66A of the IT Act which was struck down. There were over 1000s of FIRs being filed under the said provision. Justice Nariman commented on the issue, saying “What is going on is terrible. We are issuing notice”.

Background

An amendment made in 2008 introduced Section 66A in the Information Technology Act, which penalized sending of “offensive messages”, it also introduced Section 69. This amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in the Lok Sabha and it was signed by President Pratiba Patel on 5th February 2009 to be made an official part of the law. Using this amendment, the Government of India restricted the freedom of speech to avoid self-harm and misuse. This allowed the arrest of any person which the law per se felt was harmful. In 2012, Shreya Singhal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India.

Shreya Singhal v Union of India

In 2012, the leader of Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray passed away and there was a bandh declared in Maharashtra by the members of Shiv Sena. Two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan residing in Thane, were involved in this case, one of them posted something on Facebook and the other simply liked the post. Both of them were expressing their displeasure because of the state-wide bandh. They were arrested by the Mumbai police in 2012 under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section aims to punish any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred or ill-will.

Although the two girls were released later, and their criminal cases were closed, they attracted widespread public protests. People felt that the police had misused their power by invoking Section 66A, they felt that it violated the freedom of speech and expression. So, later a writ petition was filed in Public Interest to declare Section 66A, 69, and 79 of IT Act, 2000 as unconstitutional. It was argued that the Section was in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and no provision under Article 19(2) saved it. It was also argued that the section created a lot of vagueness which gave arbitrary powers to the authorities.

In the judgement of this case, the Supreme Court agreed that none of the grounds contained in Article 19(2) were capable of being invoked as legitimate defenses for the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. They said that any law that seeks to impose a restriction on freedom of speech can only pass muster. They also agreed that Section 66A is vague as it did not define what counts as ‘offensive’ as the object of offense will always be subjective. The Court found that Section 66A leaves many terms open-ended and undefined, therefore making the statute void for vagueness. To conclude, the court invalidated Section 66A in its entirety as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The highest Court had made the statute void but the police still keep using it to curb voices and rights that go against them. It is important to make every citizen aware of this update so that they know when they are being charged under a revoked section. And it is also important to hold regular briefings in every police station specifying which laws no longer hold credibility so that each one of them is aware and knows that doing so would then be a crime.

References

Freedom of Speech Vs Nationalism

Freedom of expression is a crucial pillar of an independent government; without it, a free society’s constitution is broken, and torture takes place on its ruins. Every person has the right to freely express their opinions, thoughts, and ideas on any issue without fear of being harassed or censored by the government. In the Indian Constitution, Article 19, freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “a feeling that people often believe in their country and take pride in them that it is better and more important than other countries” or “a strong desire to unite people who share culture, history, language, and other characteristics to form a separate and independent nation.” “For the exchange of ideas between the right and wrong organizations” Due to the distress, a recent discussion in India pitted freedom of speech and expression against nationalism. The boundary between nationalism and jingoism is frequently blurred, and as a result, they trample on free expression.

‘Freedom of speech’ is a gradually evolving idea in European cognition. The Bill of Rights in England (1698) guaranteed “freedom of expression in parliament.” The statement of human rights and cultures adopted during the French Revolution in 1789 also influenced this concept. In India, the Rowlatt Act of 1919 provided the British government and police considerable powers, including limits on public assemblies, personal rights and freedoms, media and publication control, and so on. Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent civil disobedience movement in the country was inspired by the public’s objection to this act. The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In this view, authority is significant because it promotes the realization of other human rights.

Individual and state-level freedom of expression are both protected. It can be comprehended around and around the world at the individual level, through the free exchange of ideas and information. People have the ability to express themselves irrespective of these rights, and the state protects and ensures them. On the other hand, from the standpoint of a state, freedom of speech becomes critical for the nation’s social, economic, and political growth.

This right allows honest people to administrate in all areas of government, including politics, bureaucracy, the court, and the media. It encourages residents to submit to these checks on a regular basis. Good governance emerges as a result of this process, which encourages public debate and discussion of policies, legislation, and government operations. It aids the transformation of public forums into a marketplace for ideas. It also allows for the implementation of human rights. The state-commissioned public inquiry of media and human rights, as well as the lapse, are highlighted.

Nationalism and freedom of speech and expression can coexist. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, red lines have been drawn on both sides. Speech and freedom of expression should not be suppressed by Jingwad or hyper nationalism. Similarly, freedom of expression is prohibited, and it must be compulsory to obey and voice slogans calling for India’s destruction. Finally, Pope John Paul II can be quoted: “Extensive nationalism is now linked to a slew of attacks and human aggressiveness, none of which saves anyone. The problem that we are currently facing has been accepted as reality. Doing is nothing more than a new type of slavery.”