Tag: sedition

Issues with sedition law

Sedition

• Offence related to the conduct or speech that is inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or government.

• Punishable under Section 124A of IPC, 1860.
 Section inserted to IPC in 1870.
 Intent of the section – To punish an act of exciting feelings of disaffection towards the government, with disaffection being
distinguished from disapprobation.
 Differentiation important for freely voicing feelings against the government
as long as they obey govt.’s lawful authority.

Issues with Sedition law

• Low conviction rate under the section 124A IPC.
 Failure to convict due to lack of evidence.

• Vague definition, especially of the term disaffection – Difficult to differentiate disaffection and disapprobation.
 Leads to simple criticism being construed sedition – Suppressing dissent.

• Affects fundamental right of freedom of speech.
 Free speech – Most significant principle of democracy, human right,
liberty.
 Yardstick used for distinguishing harm is to be ‘high’.

 Reality – Both ‘provocative’ and ‘innocuous’ speeches or writings treated as same.

Judicial interpretations enables it to continue.

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 – SC attempted an attenuated interpretation of the provision.
 Upheld the validity of section 124A.
 Not sedition – As long as the criticism or comment of a
citizen does not incite people to violence against the
Government established by law or with the intention of
creating public disorder.
 ‘Public disorder’ considered to be a necessary ingredient
of section 124A IPC by the courts.
 Author – Lessened the severity of the section –
Restriction imposed on free speech could not be declared
unconstitutional.
• Misused by the police or govt.
 Criminalise strident political criticism and
accuse as being ‘antinational’.

 3 political reasons:
a) To suppress criticism and protests against particular policies/projects of the government.
b) To criminalise dissenting opinion of rights defenders/lawyers/activists and
journalists.
c) To settle political scores.

• Relic of colonial legacy and is unsuited in a democracy.
• Recent development –

 Supreme Court and CJI – Indicated their intention to reconsider the sedition
provision.
 Might lead to new guidelines and safeguards for using section 124A
meticulously.

Conclusion

• Section 124A should be struck down.

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

Why use colonial law even after 75 years of independence?

Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana’s remarks in open court on Thursday sends a strong message to the government that the Supreme Court is prima facie convinced that sedition is being misused by the authorities to trample upon citizens’ fundamental rights of free speech and liberty. The Chief Justice has sent a clear signal that Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code may have passed its time. The CJI said “if you look at the history of use of this section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low.There is misuse of power by executive agencies.

The CJI observed and conveyed his observations to Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta. The CJI said; “Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak..Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence.”

A number of petitions have been filed highlighting the “chilling effect” of sedition on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The court also observed the need to re-examine its own judgement which withheld section 124A of the IPC; i.e the Kedar Nath judgement.

Origin of the law; section 124A of IPC

Many legal experts argue that the sedition clause is a vestige of British colonial rule, originally introduced to suppress critical voices emanating from the Indian freedom movement. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as we have today, was absent from the original draft of Macaulay’s IPC in 1860, and was only introduced in the year 1870, piloted by James Stephen. This version went through further modification through the IPC (Amendment Act), 1898, since when it has largely retained its form.

Landmark case

The landmark case on this matter was that of Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak & Keshav Mahadev Bal, (1897) ILR 22 Bom 112. In this case, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was tried for sedition for alleged incitement through speech that led to the killing of two British Officials. In this case, a single judge bench of  the Bombay High Court agreed with the definition of ‘disaffection’ as propounded in Jogendra Chunder Bose and opined that any ‘bad feelings’ towards the government is criminal, irrespective of the level of bad feeling. This way, the High Court virtually disallowed all legitimate criticism. It added that there need not be any material consequence at all to qualify the offence of sedition. The court held that in sedition matters, it is the intention of the offender which is of primacy, and could be presumed based on content, audience and circumstances of their seditious speech.

Events that led to considering the need of sedition law

A case under Sections 124 A (sedition) and 153 B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) has been registered against Ms. Sultana, a native of Chetlat island, based on a petition filed by BJP’s Lakshadweep unit president Abdul Khader. The prosecution case is that that on June 7, during a TV channel discussion, she had allegedly stated that the Centre had used ‘bio-weapon’ against the natives of the islands.

Observing that prima facie the offences, including the sedition charge, alleged against Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana are not attracted, the Kerala High Court on Friday made absolute the interim anticipatory bail granted to her in a case registered against her by the Kavaratti police for making a remark against the Central government. Justice Ashok Menon, while allowing her anticipatory bail petition, observed that prima facie the petitioner “did not have a malicious motive to subvert the government established by law by merely using the strong word ‘bio-weapon’, to express her vehemence in disapproval of the subject under discussion