 |
| Sedition Law |
In this article, we will discuss about Sedition Law which is important for your UPSC exam.
Why in News?
The Supreme Court ordered the Centre not to register any new Fir Under section 124A.
Supreme Court's stance
Supreme Court is hearing pleas challenging it. In July 2021, CJI N.V. Ramana observed, "Sedition is a colonial law" it suppresses freedoms. It is used against Mahatma Gandhi, tilak..why this law is necessary after 75 years of Independence?
What does the Law Commission say on sedition?
" 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"
"The Commission suggests that section 124A of IPC (sedition) must remain; however, it should be scrutinised whether the word 'sedition' could be substituted suitably with another"
It is Important for UPSC GS Paper - 2 under Fundamental Rights, Judgements.
In This Article, we discuss the following Topic
- What is IPC 124A
- What is Sedition Law
- The History of Sedition Law (Who introduced Sedition law)
- The argument in Support or in Against (use or misuse of the law)
- Does it violates our fundamental rights
- Why do we need sedition law
- Landmark Judgment
- Conclusion
What is IPC 124A
Section 124A- Whoever 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 the law in India shall be punished with [from 3 years to life imprisonment] to which fine may be added.
Explanation 1. The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the Government's measures with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, which exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
To Read More About IPC 124A Click Here
What is Sedition Law?
Historical Background
- Drafted by British historian- Politician Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837.
- Sedition laws were enacted in 17th century England when lawmakers believed that only good opinions of the government should survive.
- The Sedition charge, which was included in Section 124A of the Indian Penal code in 1870
- It was imposed by the British Colonial Government to primarily suppress the writings and speeches of prominent Indian freedom fighters (Writings of leaders like - Mahatma Gandhi, and Lokmanya Tilak)
Sedition
- "Sedition was defined as an offence committed when "any person by words, either written or spoken, or by signs, or by visible representation, or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India"
Sedition law punishment
- As per Section 124A, 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 a government job nd their passport is seized by the government.
The argument in Support of Sedition Law (why do we need sedition law)
- Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements
- It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means. The continued existence of the government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State
- If contempt of court invites penal action, contempt of government should also attract punishment
- Many districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution
- Against this backdrop, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicized cases
The Argument in against of Sedition Law
- Section 124A is a relic of colonial legacy and unsuited in a democracy. It is a constraint on the legitimate exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression.
- Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of robust public debate in a vibrant democracy. They should not be constructed as sedition. Right to question, criticize and change rulers is very fundamental to the idea of democracy.
- The British, who introduced sedition to oppress Indians, have themselves abolished the law in their country. There is no reason, why should not India abolish this section.
- The terms used under Section 124A like 'disaffection' are vague and subject to different interpretations of the whims and fancies of the investigating officers
- IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act have provisions that penalize "disrupting the public order" or "overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means". These are sufficient for protecting national integrity. There is no need for Section 124A.
- The sedition law is being misused as a tool to persecute political dissent. A wide and concentrated executive discretion is inbuilt into it which permits the blatant abuse.
- In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of expression. However, misuse of sedition and arbitrary slapping of charges are inconsistent with India's international commitments.
The Disutility of Sedition Law
- Sedition cases have increased by 28% under the Modi government, according to a database compiled by the news website Article-14.
- Kanhaiya Kumar, Aseem Trivedi, Umar Khalid, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, and Owaisi are well-known for high-profile sedition charges imposed on them.
- Since 2014, Indian authorities have filed more than 500 sedition cases involving more than 7,000 people. According to Article 14,
- 149 people have faced sedition charges simply for making remarks about Modi that were considered critical or derogatory.
- While the courts ultimately dismiss most sedition cases, the process itself becomes the punishment.
- In one example, three Kashmiri Muslim students spent nearly six months in jail for allegedly celebrating Pakistan’s win over India in a cricket match in October 2021.
Sedition Law violates Fundamental rights?
- The rampant use of the sedition law recalls the colonial era.
- The Constituent assembly were not ready to include sedition law in Indian Constitution, the member felt it would curtail freedom of speech and expression.
- They argued that the sedition law can be turned into a weapon to suppress people's legitimate and constitutionally guaranteed right to protest.
- Increasingly India is being described as an autocracy primarily because of the callous and calculated use of sedition law.
- Sedition is not part of Article 19(2) the fundamental right to free expression can only be subjected to reasonable restrictions.
Conflict between Article 19(1) (a) & Sedition law
Article 19(1) (a) – guarantees the freedom of speech and speech as fundamental rights subject to “reasonable restrictions “mentioned under Article 19)2)
Article 19(2) – Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the following grounds-
- Security of the State,[
- Friendly relations with Foreign states,
- Public order,
- Decency and morality,
- Contempt of court,
- Defamation,
- Incitement to an offence, and
- Sovereignty and integrity of India.
Why Sedition and free speech cannot go together
- Freedom of the press and sedition cannot be balanced
- Mere criticism cannot be sedition
Landmark Cases of Sedition Law - UPSC
- Queen-Empress vs Bal Gangadhar tilak, 1898
- Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras, AIR 1950
- Vinod Dua vs Union of Inda, WP 2020
- Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar 1962
Conclusion
The Indian government has strict rules on sedition, it needs to be readdressed by Supreme Court and The Government at the same table, the government must strike a balance between sedition and freedom of speech and expression since the ability to criticise the government is crucial to a strong democracy freely.