Sedition is once again the subject of debate as the Supreme Court is hearing pleas challenging it.
First of all, what is SEDITION- as per the dictionary- conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
What is sedition law?
Drafted by British historian-politician Thomas Macaulay in 1837. Sedition was defined as an act by ‘whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Govt established by law in India’.
The sedition charge, which was included in Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870, was imposed by the British Govt to primarily suppress the writings and speeches of prominent Indian freedom fighters. Writing of leaders like Gandhi, Tilak and JC Bose was suppressed and they were tried under sedition law for their contempt shown to the colonial Govt.
As per Section 124 A, sedition is a non-bailable offence, punishable with imprisonment from three years up to life, along with a fine. The person charged under this law is also barred from Govt job and their passport is seized by the Govt. Incidentally, the sedition charge was abolished by the United Kingdom (UK) in 2010.
What does the Law Commission say on sedition?
According to Law Commission’s 2018 report, while framing the Constitution, the constituent Assembly had opposed the inclusion of sedition as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression under then-Article 13. It saw the provision as a shadow of British rule that should not see the light of the day in free India. However, the offence remained under section 124 A of IPC.
The report concludes, “ In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection towards their country in their own way. For doing the same, one might indulge in constructive criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the Govt. Expressions used in such thoughts might be harsh and unpleasant to some, but that does not render the actions to be branded seditious”. It opined that section 124 A should be invoked only in cases where the intention behind any act is to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Govt with violence and illegal means. The Commission suggested that this section of sedition must remain; however, it should be scrutinized whether the word sedition could be suitably substituted with another.
What is SC’s stance on it?
Last year in July, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana observed “ Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedom. Is this law necessary after 75 years of independence?” He said this addressing Attorney General and Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre.
The pleas against this law are filed by the Editors guild of India and Major General(Retd) SG Vombatkere, state that the law causes a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.
The SC had first issued a notice to the Centre in July 2021 about the challenge to the legality of section 124 A of IPC, which criminalises sedition. The SC on 5th May 2022, asked the centre to file an affidavit on their stand on the sedition law. Yesterday the Central Govt filed an affidavit in SC stating that it has decided to “ re-examine and reconsider” the provisions of the law on sedition (Section 124 A of the IPC) in the wake of concerns raised about its “application and abuse”.
Finally, a beginning has been made on the long-pending subject of sedition and Section 124 A.
One more thing happened in SC yesterday during the hearing of this case. Kapil Sibal of Congress (who is a senior advocate in SC), who was appearing for the petitioners said one thing- he said “ both Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were dead against retaining the sedition provision, widely used by British to arrest freedom fighters”. Replying to this Solicitor General(SG) said “ if that was the case, why nothing was done by the Congress party when they were ruling at the Centre. PM Nehru while introducing Constitution (First Amendment) Bill 1951 had said that ‘ So far as I am concerned, that particular section 124 A is highly objectionable. It should have no place, both for practical and historical reasons, in any laws which we might pass’. He was PM for 17 years but nothing was done in this regard, and even by subsequent Govts”.
It was Congress, under Indira Gandhi, who misused this section of IPC during emergency extensively, and Kapil Sibal had the guts to say in SC that the Congress was the first party who thought of abolishing this section of IPC. But he is forgetting one thing saying something on this section of IPC in Parliament is one thing, and bringing the changes is another thing.
So let us wait and watch, when the Central Govt will bring about the changes in the law of sedition because Law Commission recommends that it is not advisable to totally abolish this section.
Waiting for your views on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
11th May 2022