The
recent instance of invoking sedition laws in several instances has again raised
questions on the undemocratic nature and validity of these laws in the present
constitutional democracy. It's unfortunate that these rules have survived
colonial rule. The application of sedition laws by various Indian courts
illustrates how outmoded they have become for today's culture, and numerous
recommendations are given for their application. The Fundamental Right to
Freedom of Expression and Speech is guaranteed to all inhabitants of a
democratic society like India. Although the law of sedition is legal when such
rights are limited, the breadth of such a rule is a serious concern. In our
country, where the rule of law reigns supreme, arbitrary charges of sedition is
an act that runs counter to constitutionalism. This paper is an attempt in
trace down the history of this draconian English law
INTRODUCTION
Sedition
was brought in by the British raj to quell protest and quieten criticism. Life
imprisonment was awarded to those who spoke against governmental actions. This
law was amended after independence which is more stringent than the old one.
Recently the Hon, Supreme Court underscored the need to reviews s.124(A)IPC was
brought into force in colonial India on 1860 but there was no section
containing sedition. Later it was introduced in 1870 on the ground that it was
dropped from original IPC draft by mistake,
TRACING
DOWN THE HISTORY
Law
of sedition was used to muzzle nationalist voices and demands for freedom. Many
nationalist leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Jawaharlal
Nehru were accused of sedition. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first to get
arrested for this offence accused of foiling Government’s effort at curbing the
plague epidemic in India. The nine-member jury of Bombay High court in 1897
punished him with an 18-month imprisonment. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs King
Emperor, Federal court held that reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public
disorder is the gist of the offence. This was again overturned by Privy Council
in King Emperor Vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhaleran in 1970. The court also stated
Tilak’s case and said that incitement to violence is not a Pre – requisite for
crime of sedition and that excitement of feelings of enmity of govt is very
much sufficient to establish govt
After
the deliberate discussions of the constituent assembly with the move for
Amendment from K.M Munshi dropped the word “Sedition”. Even though the word disappeared
from constitution when it was adopted s.124A continued to stay in Indian Penal
Code. Then On 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru brought in the first amendment of
constitution to limit freedom under article 19(1)(a) and article 19(2) to
empower state put curbs in form of reasonable restrictions on right to free
speech
It
was Indira Gandhi’ s government that made section 124 A a cognizable offence
for the first time in the new code of criminal procedure 1973, which came into
force in 1979 and repealed the colonial era 1898 CrPC which made sedition a
cognizable offence authorising the police to make arrests without a warrant.In
1951, Punjab high court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand Vs State of Punjab said that
sedition is putting restriction on the very basic fundamental right to speech
and expression. This prompted Jawaharlal Nehru to introduce new grounds on
which right to free speech and expression could be reasonably restricted. Then
in Debi Soren Vs State of Patna upheld the validity of Section 124 A stating
that the law doesn’t violate Article 19. In
the case of Ram Nandan Vs State, the Allahabad high court declared Section 124A
unconstitutional four years later, and held that the administration must be
ready to face a strong opposition apart from popular approval or disapproval.
PRESENT
SCENARIO
Cases
of sedition and under has increased in 2019, according to data from the
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), but only 3% of sedition cases resulted in
convictions. Over the previous year, the number of sedition cases increased by
25%, and the number of arrests increased by 41%. In 2019, 93 cases of sedition
were reported, with 96 arrests and 76 charge sheets, compared to 70 cases, 56
arrests, and 27 charge sheets the previous year.
One
of the most fundamental legal concerns with the sedition statute is its lack of
clarity. The terms "incite to hatred or contempt" and "attempt
to arouse disaffection" can be interpreted in a multitude of ways,
allowing the police and government to harass those on the other side of the
fence who are innocent. The police can use sedition law to falsely accuse
people since it does not specify which acts are seditious and provides a broad
definition of what can be regarded as seditious. The police's hasty filing of
sedition prosecutions confines an individual in a process with far-reaching
societal and psychological ramifications.. In a three-part series on sedition
cases in Karnataka, Article 14 examined the consequences of unlawful arrests in
sedition cases, including lost jobs and schooling, debt accumulation, and social
estrangement.
Justice
D.Y. Chandrachud recently raised this point while blocking the Andhra Pradesh
government from taking action against two Telugu news networks charged with
sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). "Everything
cannot be seditious," Justice Chandrachud said. It's past time to define
what constitutes sedition." "Expression of views that are dissenting
and different from the government's perspective cannot be tolerated,"
Justice Chandrachud observed in another major case (a PIL filed against Farooq
Abdullah, the former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir). Similarly, the
Delhi High Court's judgement in the Disha Ravi case said unequivocally that the
government cannot throw citizens "behind bars merely because they chose to
disagree with state policy" and that "the offence of sedition cannot
be utilised to minister to governments' wounded vanity." These court
findings obviously differ from the executive's understanding of the sedition
legislation, demonstrating how the law is being abused indiscriminately by
them. The right to free speech and expression is a hallmark of democracy, but
it is under threat because to the sedition statute. Citizens must actively
participate in debates and offer constructive criticism of government policies in
a democracy. The executive branch of the government, on the other hand, has
been authorised by the sedition laws to use the ambiguously worded clause as a
tool to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield authority.
CONCLUSION
The
sedition legislation has become a tool for instilling in citizens a sense of
cooperation with government policies. Many times, the government has utilised
the sedition statute to silence protesting voices in order to defend its own
interests. The arrests of NDTV journalist Vinod Dua for criticising the
government's response to COVID-19 and Disha Ravi, 22, in the Greta The one of
the most fundamental legal concerns with the sedition statute is its lack of
clarity. The terms "incite to hatred or contempt" and "attempt
to arouse disaffection" can be interpreted in a multitude of ways,
allowing the police and government to harass those on the other side of the
fence who are innocent. The police can use sedition law to falsely accuse
people since it does not specify which acts are seditious and provides a broad
definition of what can be regarded as seditious. The police's hasty filing of
sedition prosecutions confines an individual in a process with far-reaching
societal and psychological ramifications. Greta Thunberg toolkit case for tweeting in support
of India's farmer revolt have raised many worries about freedom of speech and
expression in the country. It has a negative impact on democracy when
journalists are exposed to censorship under the sedition statute. Sedition laws
reduce government accountability because they allow the government to ignore
its critics and punish people for sedition.The executive arm of the government
has been given the right to utilise the ambiguously worded clause as a tool to
regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power as a result of the
sedition legislation. What's more worrying is that after you've been arrested
for sedition, it's incredibly difficult to gain bail because the trial process
can take a long time.
As
a result, innocent people are harassed, while others are afraid to speak out
against the administration. The Kashmiri students in Hubli are an example of
how difficult it is to obtain bail in a sedition case, as they were granted
default bail after 100 days in police prison. To summarise, sedition laws and
their escalating abuse by governments of all shades (even those run by
opposition parties) are a serious concern. Sedition laws and their flagrant
misuse challenge the fundamental core of these liberties established in the
Indian Constitution.
The need of the hour requires the judiciary to
review this draconian law. Even if abolishing this law may not be feasible,
toning it down and issuing strict guidelines to limit its indiscriminate use
can definitely help India's democratic standing apart from safeguarding freedom
of expression in the country
ENDNOTE
- The wounded vanity of governments- a case study of free speech and sedition in India constitutionalism3.0(2022), https://constitutionalism922426505.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-wounded-vanity-of-governments-a-case-study-of-free-speech-and-sedition-in-india/ (last visited May 8, 2022
- India’s Spiralling Sedition Crisis & Why A Dilution of The Law Will Not Prevent Its Misuse — Article 14, Article-14.com (2022), https://article-14.com/post/india-s-spiralling-sedition-crisis-why-a-dilution-of-the-law-will-not-prevent-its-misuse-61a83b9694436 (last visited May 8, 2022).
- Freedom of speech and sedition law in India, Lexlife India (2022), https://lexlife.in/2021/08/31/freedom-of-speech-and-sedition-law-in-india/ (last visited May 8, 2022)
About the Author:
This post is prepared by Bhandra Anil, Law Student from The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. He can be reached at bhadraanil1765@nuals.ac.in
0 Comments