Abstract:
The Supreme Court recently asked the government why the sedition law had not been repealed, stating that it is a weapon used by British citizens to silence citizens. Chief Justice NV Ramana expressed concern about the misuse of the sedition law by some state officials, comparing it to giving a carpenter a saw to cut a piece of wood and then using it to destroy the entire forest. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines sedition. During the colonial era, the British used this sedition law to silence leaders like Gandhiji and Nehru. We discuss what this sedition law is, its history, section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the status of this law in the Modi era and in different countries, and finally whether the Indian government will repeal the law in light of the Supreme Court’s recommendations.
Article:
Patricia Mukhim and Anuradha Bhasin, two journalists, recently challenged the constitutionality of the sedition law in the Supreme Court. It is not the first time that the sedition law has been challenged. Its constitutionality has been questioned numerous times in recent years and numerous incidents of abuse have been reported.
In the interest of state security, law and order, and so on, the Indian government has used this provision numerous times to reject criticisms leveled against it. It was implemented during the British era to crack down on demands for independence. During the imperial rule, the government tried and punished many people under the aforementioned provision, including the Father of the Nation and other freedom fighters. However, until now, the sedition law has been used as a convenient tool to stifle any form or expression of dissent or criticism.
What is Sedition:
Sedition is defined as an open challenge to the existing order, for example through speech and organization. Sedition is commonly defined as the subversion of a constitution and the incitement of dissatisfaction or rebellion against existing authority. Sedition is defined as any insurrection that is not aimed at the direct and open violation of the law. Seditious libel refers to the use of seditious language in writing. Someone who undertakes or promotes sedition is referred to as a seditionist. Because it is overt, sedition is often not considered a subversive act, and the overt activities that can be prosecuted under sedition laws vary by legal code.
Sedition is a type of state betrayal. Although sedition has the same ultimate effect as treason, it is typically limited to the offense of organizing or encouraging opposition to the government in a way that falls short of the more dangerous crimes that constitute treason (such as in speaking or writing).
In Indian Law:
Sedition is defined in section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code as “Anyone who, by words, spoken or written, or signs, or visible representations, or otherwise, carries or attempts to cause hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection with the government established by law is punished with life imprisonment, to which a fine can be added … “
The provision also includes three explanations: 1- The term “disaffection” encompasses all the feelings of enmity; 2- Comments expressing disapproval of Government policies in order to obtain their modification through legal means, without inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute a crime within the meaning of this section. 3- Comments expressing disapproval of administrative or other government actions that do not incite or attempt to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute a crime under this section. This act was enacted in 1860 by the British government to prevent crimes against the state, but it did not involve sedition. It was added in 1870 due to an error in the original IPC draft.
Origin and history of Sedition law in India:
The history of the sedition law in India is fascinating. The British used the sedition law to silence dissent and imprison freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak who criticized the policies of the colonial administration. After the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the Constitution spent a lot of time deliberating on various aspects of colonial law. One of the most vocal opponents of the sedition law, K.M. Munshi said such draconian legislation is a threat to Indian democracy. He said that “the essence of democracy is, in fact, criticism of the government”. As a result of his efforts and the persistence of Sikh leader Bhupinder Singh Mann, the word “sedition” was removed from the Constitution.
However, the controversial First Amendment, enacted by the government led by the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, reinstated this law. “Now, as far as I’m concerned, that particular Section (124A IPC) is highly questionable and hateful, and should have no place, whether for practical or historical reasons, if you will, in any body of law that we might pass,” Nehru said in the 1951 proposing the first amendment to the Constitution. The sooner we reveal it, the better. “However, he lingered on this because, in 1951, his government not only restored the sedition law through the First Amendment, but also strengthened it by adding two expressions:” friendly relations with states. foreigners “and” public order “- as reasons to impose” reasonable restrictions “on free speech.
Post-Independence:
After independence, the term “sedition” was removed from the Constitution in 1948, after debate in the Constituent Assembly. KM Munshi proposed an amendment to the draft Constitution that would remove the word “sedition” as a basis for limiting constitutional freedom of speech and expression. The term “sedition” was therefore removed from the Constitution when it was adopted on November 26, 1949 and Article 19 (1) (a) guaranteed absolute freedom of speech and expression. However, section 124A remained in the CPI.
Jawaharlal Nehru proposed the first amendment to the Constitution in 1951, which limited freedom under Article 19 (1) (a) and gave the state the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the right to free expression.
Indira Gandhi’s government made section 124A a criminal offense for the first time in Indian history. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came into effect in 1974 and repealed the 1898 Colonial-Era Code of Criminal Procedure, made sedition a knowable crime.
Case laws:
Previous high court rulings were overturned by a five-judge constitution court, which upheld the constitutionality of section 124A of the IPC. The court, however, attempted to limit the court’s potential for abuse. The court ruled that, unless there is an incitement or appeal for violence, criticism of the government cannot be considered sedition. The ruling limited sedition only to the extent that the seditious speech incited “public disorder,” a sentence not found in Section 124A but added by the court.
In addition, the court issued seven “guidelines” defining when critical speech is not considered sedition.
The court stated in its guidelines for applying the new, more restrictive definition of sedition law that not all speech that expresses “disaffection”, “hatred” or “contempt” towards the state, but only speech that can inciting “public disorder” would qualify as sedition.
According to Kedarnath’s decision in 1962, the sedition law was to be used only in extreme cases where the country’s security and sovereignty were threatened. However, new evidence suggests that this law was used as a weapon as a useful tool against political opponents, suppressing dissent and free speech. According to the most recent data provided by Article 14, 25 cases of sedition were filed in response to the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 22 in response to the Hathras gang rape and 27 in response to the Pulwama incident. After 2014, 96% of the 405 sedition cases filed against Indians in the previous decade were recorded.
Following the Kedar Nath verdict, “public disorder” was deemed a necessary component of the sedition. The court ruled that the mere slogan does not constitute sedition in the absence of a threat to public order. This decision in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) reaffirmed the importance of considering the true intent of speech before labeling it seditious. The petitioners were accused of sedition after shouting in public: “Khalistan Zindabad, Raj Karega Khalsa, Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Kar” (Hindus will leave Punjab and reign).
Following decisions, such as Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), the court found that a person can be convicted of sedition even if he was not the author of the seditious speech but simply circulated it.
In Arun Jaitley v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court ruled in 2016 that criticism of the judiciary or a court ruling would not amount to sedition: former Union Minister Arun Jaitley had criticized the Supreme Court ruling of 2016 which declared the National Commission for Judicial Appointments unconstitutional in a blog post.
The India Law Commission and even the Supreme Court have issued reports highlighting the widespread abuse of the sedition law. Kedar Nath’s guidelines, as well as a textual deviation in the law, require police officers who register a case to distinguish between legitimate and seditious speech.
The Supreme Court overturned the FIRs accusing the journalist of sedition for criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis in Vinod Dua v Union of India and warned against the abuse of the provision.
Furthermore, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau, sedition cases increased by 163% from 47 in 2012 to 93 in 2019. However, only 3% of cases are converted into convictions. This shows how the police and other state authorities are arbitrarily applying sedition laws to terrorize citizens and silence any criticism or dissent against the regime.
Sedition is a crime punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. It does not constitute a crime. Section 124A penalties can range from three years in prison to life in prison, plus a fine. During the British Raj, the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. Section 124A of the code is found in Chapter VI, which deals with state offenses.
Anyone who incites or attempts to incite hatred or contempt, or incites or attempts to arouse disaffection with the government established by law in India, by word, spoken or written, or visible signs, or representations, or by any other means, must be punished with life imprisonment, to which a fine can be added, or with a fine. A person accused under this statute is prohibited from working for the government, is required to live without a passport, and is required to appear in court if necessary.
New Challenge to Sedition Law:
Mahatma Gandhi dubbed Section 124 A the “prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress citizens’ freedom”. Jawaharlal Nehru called the disposition “hateful”, saying that “the sooner we get rid of it, the better.” However, in July 2019, Nityanand Rai, Minister of State for Internal Affairs, told Rajya Sabha that “there is no proposal to repeal the provision of the IPC relating to the crime of sedition”. It is not necessary to maintain the arrangement to effectively combat the anti-nationalist, secessionist and terrorist elements. ”TRS lawmaker Banda Prakash asked the question.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a new challenge to the arrangement following a series of petitions from reporters, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha, Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, and Trinamool Congressman Mahua Moitra, among others. A jury of seven judges would decide whether Kedar Nath’s decision was correct. Although the government initially defended the provision, arguing that “isolated incidents of misuse” do not justify its removal, it has now informed the court that it is considering a new revision of the colonial law.
Signatories argue that other laws, such as strict counter-terrorism laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, may address Kedar Nath’s definition of limited sedition. The court’s intervention is critical because if it confirms the provision, it will have to reverse the Kedarnath ruling and uphold earlier rulings that were more liberal on free speech. However, if the government decides to revise the law, weaken it or repeal it altogether, the provision could be reinstated in a different form.
Sedition cases rise under NDA era:
Since 2010, nearly 11,000 people have been charged with 816 cases of sedition, 65 percent of them after the Modi government took power in 2014.
95 percent of the 405 Indians accused of sedition for criticizing politicians and governments over the past decade were charged after 2014. 149 of them were accused of making “critical” or “derogatory” remarks about Modi, while 144 were accused of criticizing Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath.
The data shows a 28% increase in sedition cases filed annually between 2014 and 2020, or Modi’s mandate, compared to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) administration’s second term annual average from 2010 to 2014.
To Stop Misuse:
Human rights activists and civil rights organizations have called for the repeal of Section 124A, arguing that this repressive colonial arrangement has no place in any democratic country. They argue that the legislation defines sedition in a way that undermines the rights and freedoms of citizens. It is also used when there is no threat to public order or incitement to violence.
In 2018, the Law Commission issued a consultation document requesting a review of the laws enacted under Section 124A. It was noted that the United Kingdom, the creator of the sedition law, as well as New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea and others, have repealed their respective sedition laws. It has been argued that a British law passed to suppress the independence movement should still be valid in India.
As a result, the sedition law has been used to silence rumors of protest, dissent and criticism of the government since its inception in 1870. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Kedar Nath decision, which upheld the sedition law, is it came at a time when doctrines such as the “chilling effect” to free speech, which creates psychological barriers through legal sanctions, were unknown.
The growing number of sedition cases in recent years shows that the authorities are indiscriminately enforcing this exceptional law. The data clearly shows that Section 124A is known for its widespread misuse, subjective application, ambiguity, and frequent use as a tool to harass citizens for trivial reasons.
Why Should the Law be Scrapped:
Some might consider a given discourse “seditious” and “anti-national”, while others might consider it democratic and good. Regardless of judicial safeguards, successive administrations have used and abused the sedition law to achieve their political goals. The chilling effect of these rules threatens to erode, and ultimately eliminate, the legal and constitutionally protected right to protest, disagree or criticize the government.
Some points can be raised to question the sedition law. The sedition law was enacted as a constitutional safeguard to protect the state by forbidding individuals to incite “disaffection”. It’s a system designed to keep anti-government sentiment at bay. It also symbolizes the “free expression” guaranteed by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Indeed, it is every citizen’s legal right to expose the flaws of the government they disagree with, sow discontent and disloyalty among the population, and attempt to remove the government from power. Disloyalty to the state is not the same as disloyalty to the government. However, the state recently used this provision to crack down on peaceful protests and human rights activists. Between 2016 and 2019, the number of cases filed under Section 124-A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) increased by 160%, while the conviction rate decreased from 33.3% in 2016. to 3.3% in 2019. (NCRB).
Second, the UK, which pioneered the sedition laws of India, repealed them. While the UK abolished sedition laws in 2010, acclaimed writer Arundhati Roy and others have been accused of sedition for advocating independence for the disputed region of Kashmir. Sedition laws were first used in modern India. Many human rights activists have been accused of sedition.
Third, due to the ambiguity of the text, sedition has been used against political activists, human rights defenders and other individuals who are exercising or claiming their constitutional rights. Crimes must be defined by law and adhere to the concept of legality, which is a universally recognized prerequisite for a fair trial. This means that they must be clearly and precisely stated for people to regulate their behavior appropriately. Vague rules undermine the rule of law because they allow for selective judicial action and interpretation based on discriminatory policies of government officials and the personal preferences of judges.
Sedition Laws in different Countries:
In the UK, the Sedition Act was officially repealed under Section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, citing a chilling effect on free speech and expression. The common law of sedition, which dates back to the Statute of Westminster in 1275, when the king was considered the holder of divine right, has been called “arcane” and “of a bygone era in which freedom of expression was not seen as the right. which is today “.
Sedition is a federal offense in the United States under section 2384 of the Federal Criminal Code and is currently used against rioters involved in the January 6 attack on the capital. Despite the First Amendment’s ban on restricting free speech, “conspiracy to directly interfere with the functioning of the government” is considered sedition, not just speech.
Australia repealed its sedition law in 2010 and Singapore repealed it last year, citing several new laws that may adequately address the need for a sedition law without chilling effects.
Conclusion:
Invoking or threatening to invoke sedition is a subtle form of illegal self-censorship because it cools the exercise of one’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. India should also seek inspiration in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Korea, where the sedition law has been repealed, as well as the United States, Germany and others, where the law still exists. but many of its provisions have been overturned. Legislation should allow for the expression of the widest possible range of ideas and opinions. Sedition is a repressive and antiquated colonial government that elevates government to sacred status and seeks to transform us into submissive and undisputed vassals. It has no place in a democratic society and should be phased out. Until parliament repeals the sedition law, the higher judiciary should use its supervisory powers to educate magistrates and police about constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
