THE SEDITION LAW IN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE : STATUS QUO

Abstract

Since its beginnings during colonial times, the statute of sedition has drawn criticism. The British intended to impose the rule in order to silence critics rather than support India’s nationalist aspirations. However, since the free expression is the foundation of a democracy, the law looks ambiguous today. Additionally, over time, the government has abused the legislation. Even the United Kingdom did away with its anti-sedition statute as a warning to other nations. This legislation has been improperly used by the powerful authority in the guise of national security and integrity. The legal system is being utilized to stifle disagreement and eliminate criticism. Sedition law is now viewed as a violation of the right to free speech and expression. The nation must promote a culture of discourse and tolerance for divergent viewpoints. The Nation wouldn’t be able to speak with its own voice till then.

 

In India and the United States, the legislation of sedition has withstood harsh criticism from a variety of public groups. Even though both of these nations are among the greatest democracies, the ancient law of sedition is nevertheless a distinctive feature of their criminal codes. With a comparative analysis of the sedition laws in the United States, the author of this research seeks to assess the current sedition statute in light of Article 19(1) (a) and determine if it is necessary for the current Indian context.

This research is based on the doctrinal method and will be based on legal research on the analysis of the provision of statutes, and regulations. The paper will examine the sedition law and its impacts on the rights of individuals and how it exploits the rights of the citizens. This paper will put more emphasis on the comparative study of sedition law with India, the United Kingdom, Australia, Malaysia & USA.

 

 

Keywords: Freedom of Speech of Expression, Sedition, Government & Section 124A IPC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• INTRODUCTION

 

Sedition word has been extracted from the Latin word sēditiō, meaning “discord,” from sēd-, meaning “apart,” and itiō, meaning “a going[1].

Sedition means inciting people to revolt or defy the ruling authority is considered sedition. The southern states carried out this action at the outbreak of the Civil War.

The state has the authority to establish reasonable limits in the interest of the nation/country since it is true that people occasionally transcend the line of decency and endanger national cohesion. However, the judiciary must determine whether or not those restrictions are lawful. Although hate speech should be controlled since it is destroying the nation, sedition has recently been misused. In general meaning, Sedition means that inciting the public or making anti-government speech against the government will come under the ambit of Sedition.

 

Sedition is the act of libel (defaming) the government or other recognized legal authority. Investigating and examining the criminal laws of many countries reveals that sedition is considered a crime against the state. History has shown that such strict laws have been used against citizens by both democratic and totalitarian regimes, particularly during periods of political and economic unrest. Speeches intended to prevent “public discord” with the king or other influential people in the realm were considered an infraction under the Statute of Westminster the First, which was first codified in English law in 1275.[2] If the Monarch or Crown was mentioned, dissent was considered treason in the sixteenth century. If it didn’t fit that description, it was protected by “Scandalum Magnatum,” which was defined as “defamatory speech or writing published to the injury of a peer, or the other great officer of England.”

 

Its usage was centred on preserving King’s quiet before the Libel Act of 1792, but once that statute was written, it was employed anytime there was a chance of a public disturbance. As a result, sedition came to be understood as any actions, whether verbal or written, that would disturb the peace of the society, incite rebellion against the government, or dishonour the sovereign[3].

Sedition was introduced in India under the British Raj. The Sedition was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in the year 1837, he also defined sedition as “Whoever incites or brings enmity against the Indian government via words, whether spoken or written, signs, or other visual representations.”

 

Its main goal at the time was to cope with the rising Wahabi activities in India, which were a threat to the British Colonial Government. The Patna-based Wahabi movement was an Islamic revivalist movement that placed a strong emphasis on rejecting any deviation from the basic teachings of Islam and returning to its core principles. Syed Ahmed Barelvi served as the movement’s leader. Since the 1830s, the movement has been active, but with the 1857 uprising, it evolved into a violent Jihad against the British. The British then conducted major military operations against Wahabis and considered them traitors and rebels. After 1870, the movement was completely put down. Therefore Britain introduced the sedition law in India and it was also brought to suppress the voice and writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak & Jogendra Chandra Bose: they all were tried under the sedition law.

In UK sedition law became obsolete in the year the 1960s and it was later on repealed in 2009.

 

Within a reasonable limit, critical criticism of state decisions and policies that do not stir up rebellion conforms with freedom of speech and expression. The portion is now being flailed unfairly at any antagonistic entity. This grey area needs to be cleared up. It will look at how these restrictions limit the freedom of speech of citizens and the ability to constructively criticize or voice opposition against governments.

It is still in use in India with the intention of stifling free speech.

 

• Statement of Problem

 

The Sedition law is arbitrary to the constitutional right of Freedom of speech and expression.

Sedition law has not been defined anywhere due to the vague definition of the law can be misused by the police. The Sedition law can be used by the government arbitrarily to reduce the government’s accountability.

 

• Research Objectives

 

The following study goals are intended to be achieved by the article, which is based on the aforementioned research questions:

• To examine the background and justification for the Law of Sedition in India.
• To investigate if India’s Law against Sedition is being abused.
• To conduct a comparative analysis of how the Law of Sedition applies in India and other nations.

 

• Research Methodology

 

This doctrinal study’s aim is to examine India’s legislation regarding dissent. By contrasting the sedition laws of different nations, it also aims to provide a global perspective.

The research discusses current legislation and pertinent instances. Secondary sources used in the study for this purpose include academic publications, published research papers, journals, and newspapers.

• The Sedition law in India.

 

The British introduced sedition laws in India to put an end to the people’s demonstrations and actions against the government. The Macaulay Draught Penal Code of 1860’s Section 113 initially contained the sedition provision, which was eventually incorporated into Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The main reason for the law’s inclusion was the Wahhabi Movement, which was growing in popularity in Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and northwest India. Many well-known individuals, like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, were charged with the crime of sedition in order to quiet the oppositional voices.

 

The erstwhile was prosecuted twice: once for statements that allegedly incited violence, leading to the deaths of two public officials, and again for his call for “self-rule,” or “Swaraj,” in his daily newspaper, “Kesari. In this instance,that by rejecting the notion that “disaffection” and “disloyalty” are synonymous, Justice James Strachey expanded the application of section 124-A. He also explained the definition of “feelings of disaffection,” which includes anger, hate, and any other manner of expressing negative feelings against the government. Therefore, it can be said that the distinction between the sedition law under British rule and the current definition is that the former was limited to “punish exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection towards the government,” whereas the latter also added “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt towards the government of India as punishable under the offence.”

The concept of sedition and the punishments are prescribed in the Section 124A IPC:

 

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

 

The key part that may be consulted regarding this offence is part 124 A, which specifies the offence of sedition. A life sentence in prison is the worst penalty that may be imposed on an offender in accordance with this clause.

 

2. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 

Any publication that violates section 124 A of the IPC[4] may be seized or forfeited by the government under section 95 of the CrPC. Additionally, a search warrant may be issued by the authorities in order to forfeit a publication. Two requirements must be met in order for this legislation to be put into effect: (1) the material must be penalised under Section 124A; and (2) the government must provide justification for its decision to forfeit the material that is punishable in this way.

 

3. Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967

 

Any conduct that “supports claims of secession, questions or disrupts territorial integrity, and causes or intends to cause disaffection against India will fall within its purview[5],” according to section 2(o) of the conduct, is defined as criminal action. Section 13 of the law also describes the penalty for the offence, which includes a fine and a maximum sentence of seven years in jail[6].

 

4. Prevent Seditious Meetings Act, 1911.

 

The Act was created while Britain was in power and is now a component of our legal system. According to Section 5 of the Act, the District Magistrate/Commissioner of the Police has the authority to impose restrictions on public gatherings if they are believed to be likely to incite dissension or sedition or to disturb the peace of the community[7].

 

5. Sedition in respect to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

 

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution’s guarantee to freedom of speech and expression has been in conflict with the law of sedition ever since it was established. The constitution’s creators were not in favour of the statute of sedition after independence since it curtailed the freedom of speech and expression. However, it persisted in the criminal legislation until it was addressed in three major decisions.

 

1. The first case post-independence to explore section 124 A of the IPC was Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[8] According to the Supreme Court, an act will only be covered by Article 19(2) of the constitution if it has the potential to endanger the “security of or tend to overthrow the State.” ‘Friendly ties with state’ and ‘public order’ were inserted to Article 19 (2) for this reason. From this point on, only conduct that had the potential to seriously destabilise society and jeopardise national security was no longer protected by the freedom of speech and expression.

 

1. The Punjab High Court deemed the provision illegal in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State[9] because it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution. A statute of sedition that was deemed necessary during a time of foreign control, the court said, “has become inappropriate by the very nature of the change that has occurred.”

 

The court ruled that “if such criticism without any tendency to cause public disorder, can be caught within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, then that Section must be declared invalid because it restricts freedom of speech regardless of whether the interest of public order or the security of the State is at stake and is capable of striking at the very core of the Constitution, which is free speech” (subject to limited control under Art)[10].

 

1. The landmark Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar[11]decision established the constitutional legitimacy of the sedition statute under section 124A of the IPC. The court clarified the difference between the “Government established by law” and “the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration,” arguing that the former is a physical representation of the State and that, as a result, the sedition law’s existence is a prerequisite for the stability of the State.

 

Therefore, even strongly worded criticism of the government’s policies and acts that did not have a propensity to encourage violence was not punished under this charge. Union of India v. Shreya Singhal[12], a well-known case, Three criteria were established by the Supreme Court to measure the exercise of free speech and expression: (a) debate; (b) advocacy; and (c) incitement[13]The right is accessible as long as the act falls under the first two definitions, which make up the core of Article 19(1)(a). However, he is no longer protected by this right at the point where the act falls under the definition of incitement, and the case is subject to reasonable limits under Article 19 (2).

 

6. The recent case of Sedition: State v Disha A. Ravi[14](2021)

 

Disha & Shantanu, were PJF co-founders participated in a Zoom meeting, according to information provided by the state.  The defendant and Shantanu, according to the state, communicated via message services.Shantanu was there in New Delhi at the time of the bloody melee. Thus, it was claimed that Disha conspired with the individuals responsible for the altercation on January 26, 2021, to provoke unrest in India.

In this case, she was granted bail and it was observed:

1. In any democratic country, the people serve as the government’s watchdogs.
2. They cannot be imprisoned merely for choosing to oppose the government’s rules.

 

The reason for engaging with those who have questionable qualifications is crucial. Simply being interesting is irrelevant.

The defendant’s action and the violence on January 26, 2021, were not related in any way.

Article 19 includes the freedom to communicate with anybody, everywhere in the world, without restriction by physical distance.

• • Sedition law at International Jurisdiction: United Kingdom, USA, Russia, Australia & Newland.

 

In India, Britisher’s has introduced the concept of sedition to supress the voices of the Freedom Fighters (Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi) in order to rule the India . In UK, sedition was abolished in the year of 2009.

We have seen how the sedition legislation has changed through time in India. However, there are variations in the legislation all around the world. The way that various nations understand and apply the law of sedition varies substantially mentioned below as well. A few of the cases will be discussed.

 

1. United Kingdom

 

During the monarchy, seditious behaviour was equated with treason. In the Statute of Westminster of 1275, the king’s divine right and the principles of feudal society were deemed indisputable. Seditious libel was linked to blasphemous libel because the State and the Church were perceived as being one and the same. The Sedition Act of 1661 established sedition as a criminal in the United Kingdom. The ‘De Libellis Famosis[15]‘ case was the one that firmly established the idea of seditious libel in the UK.

 

However, a report by the Law Reforms Committee (now the Law Commission) in 1977 called for the abolition of the sedition statutes. Blasphemous libel was also made illegal by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008, which was passed by the democratically elected government. The provisions against seditious libel and sedition were then removed the following year by the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.

It is crucial to highlight that the United Kingdom, upon which Indian law is based, no longer considers sedition to be a crime. The presence of these out-dated charges in this country has been invoked by other countries as justification for maintaining laws of a similar nature that had been actively utilised to crush political dissent and restrict journalistic freedom. By getting rid of these offences, the UK will be able to lead the charge against legislation that is being used to suppress free speech[16] in other countries.

 

By abolishing these charges, the UK will be in a better position to lead the fight against laws that stifle free expression abroad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. United State of America

 

Even the home of freedom has not shied away from using anti-sedition laws to crush dissent. In reaction to the virtual war with France, the Federalist administration enacted the Aliens and Sedition laws, which were designed to target foreigners and non-citizens who resided in the United States of America and sympathised with France. This collection of laws included the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act of 1798 forbade Americans from speaking, writing, or publishing any slanderous or libellous remarks about the federal government.

As press publications were the primary political instrument for political parties, this led to the targeting of Democratic-Republican journalists. The people was extremely against this law. As a result, on March 3, 1801, the Sedition Act was repealed by the incoming Republican administration.

The Sedition Act of 1918 was enacted by the American government in the midst of World War I. The Act made it unlawful to encourage disloyalty among military personnel, treason to the government, the Constitution, the armed forces, or the flag, or to assist nations at war with the United States. The US Supreme Court, however, overturned this Act.

 

Treason and seditious conspiracy are currently crimes under Articles 2381 and 2384 of the Federal Criminal Code, respectively.

One of the key differences between the two countries’ approach to sedition is that India’s sedition law is much broader in scope than what was formerly in the US.

In India punishment can be given on any contempt, disaffection & hatred against the government then the person can be charged against the person. In India, sedition can be applied to the person who bring the hatred against the government and whereas in the USA there is no proper provision. Basically every country’s main goal is to the protect the people and their right of freedom and expression.

 

3. Russia

 

Sedition has been made a crime in Russia on the pretence of treason and espionage. The Russian Criminal Code made certain behaviours illegal.

1. Russian national who revealed

(a) state secrets

(b) assisting a foreign state, foreign organisation, or their agent in hostile actions that endanger the security of Russia as treason.

2. A Foreign National

(a) giving the state secret to a foreign state, foreign organisation, or their representative via transfer, collection, theft, or retention

(b) any other information that is sent or collected at the direction of a foreign intelligence service.

The hostile acts like espionage that are harmful to Russia’s security.

Recently, Russia approved two laws that make it illegal to openly disobey the government, its officials, and Russian society as well as to disseminate false material of public interest that is distributed as fake news.

While both India and Russia have sedition laws aimed at protecting the state, India’s sedition law is broader and covers a wider range of activities. In India, sedition can be applied to any act or attempt to bring hatred or contempt towards the government established by law in India. In contrast, Russia’s sedition law only covers public calls for actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Additionally, the maximum punishment for sedition is higher in India, with a possible sentence of life imprisonment, while in Russia, the maximum sentence is up to four years in prison.

It is worth noting that the sedition laws in both countries have been criticized by human rights organizations for being used to stifle dissent and free speech. In recent years, there have been calls for the repeal of these laws in both India and Russia.

 

4. Australia

 

The Crime Act of 1920 was the first complete piece of law to include a sedition crime. Due to the fact that subjective purpose and the instigation of violence or public disturbance were not requirements for conviction under these provisions, the prohibitions on sedition in this Act were more expansive than the common law definition.In the year 1984, the Hope commission has constituted and recommended that the definition of the Australia sedition law it should be aligned with the common wealth definition. Sedition was added to Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 as an offence in 2005, while articles 80.2 and 80.3 of the Criminal Code Act of 1995 were added as defences. The usage of the term “sedition” to describe the offences listed in the 2005 amendment was examined by the Australian Law Reform Commission (hereafter ALRC). The National Security Legislation Amendment Act of 2010 adopted the ALRC’s recommendation, replacing references to sedition with those to charges involving inciting violence.

 

5. Newzland

 

The definition of sedition in New Zealand closely resembles that of sedition in England. Sections 81 through 85 of the Crimes Act of 1961 codified it.The following are the considerations that both England and New Zealand made when they decided to outlaw the crime of sedition:

The definition of sedition is ambiguous and ill-defined. The fundamental tenets of criminal law are violated by this. In any event, it alludes to a historical setting that is no longer valid (sovereignty existing in the person of the King). The out-dated law has to be repealed.

Even if certain political opinions can be absurd or unpopular, they cannot be made illegal.This violates democratic principles. The notion of sedition violates the widely acknowledged fundamental rights to free speech and expression. In reality, the legal system is employed to stifle political dissent and official criticism. Free speech is threatened by this.

 

 

 

 

 

1.8 Conclusion and Suggestion

 

The “King is Supreme” principle is supported by the colonial law of sedition. It has no place in the society of today, which places the highest importance on individual liberty. Sedition need to be prohibited in order to ensure that people can exercise their right to disagree. Healthy conflict shouldn’t be punished since it can advance the nation. Sedition is merely one tool in a toolbox, though. Even if the sedition act were abolished, the misuse of the UAPA, NSA, preventative detention laws, etc. would continue to restrict the right to demonstrate. The country must foster a culture of dialogue and respect for opposing points of view. Until then, India wouldn’t be able to speak for itself.

 

The Sedition Law is a controversial law that criminalizes certain forms of expression that are deemed to be seditious. In international perspective, the law has been criticized by human rights advocates and free speech proponents for its potential to suppress dissent and violate freedom of expression.

 

In the developing countries and the developed countries i.e. United Kingdom, Australia, Canada has been repealed the sedition law. In these countries law has been seen as the unconstitutional and unnecessary and it basically infringe the basic rights of the individual i.e. Freedom of Speech and Expression.

 

The sedition law has direct impact on the speech and expression of the individual therefore it is essential to consider the right of speech and expression because gives right to the individual to express their views without any fear of oppression. While there are some countries who still argue about maintaining the peace and law and order within the Nation.

 

According, to the International Human rights & Amnesty International:  the sedition law should be repealed and they also states the more emphasis should be given to freedom of speech and expression and as democratic nation we should give more value to the opinions of the individuals.

There for the retention or repeal of the sedition law is most importantly based on the individual’s and their countries legal system which they are following it and it is most importantly, they should balance the right of freedom of speech and expression and social ability.

 

Hence, there are some countries which have retained the Sedition law on the contention of maintaining the social ability but the sedition law has been become obsolete and unnecessary restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. Need to protect the rights of freedom speech and expression and also by maintaining the law and order of the county.

 

 

 

 

 

Biblography

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366701310_THE_JUDICIAL_APPROACH_OF_SEDITION_ON_SOCIAL_MEDIA
2. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-sedition-law-the-past-present-and-future/
3. https://www.academia.edu/35894559/Sedition_PDF_pdf
4. https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/law-of-sedition-in-the-era-of-free-speech-a-comparative-study-of-india-and-usa/
5. https://vidhi.org/comparison-of-sedition-law-in-india-and-international-jurisdictions/
6. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9762-in-depth-analysis-of-sedition-law.html
7. https://blog.ipleaders.in/sedition-law/
8. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/truth-lies-and-politics/sedition-law-in-historical-perspective-part-ii/
9. https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Sedition-Laws-in-India.pdf
10. https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/how-countries-junked-sedition-law-supreme-court-section-124a-1948152-2022-05-11

 

[1]Sedition available at https://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/sedition (Last visited on August 13, 2021).

[2] The History of Freedom Speech in the UK available at : https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacusblogURL116.htm ( Last visited on August 19, 2021)

[3] Legal History of Sedition, https://www.livelaw.in/ columns/sedition-ipc-124a-article-19-1-a-of-theindian-constitution-independence-of-the-judiciary178280 (Last visited on August 21,2021)

[4] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (Act No. 2 of 1974), s.95.

[5] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act No. 37 of 1967), s.2(o).

[6] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967( Act No. 37 of 1967), s 13(b).

[7] Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act,1911 (Act No. 10 of 1911), s 5.

[8] AIR 1950 SC 124.

[9] SC 124 AIR (1950).

[10] All 101 AIR (1959).

[11] AIR 1962 SC 955

[12] (2015) 5 SCC 1

[13] Nitya Nand Pandey, ‘Sedition vis-vis Right to Speech, International law journal (2018)

[14] Bail Application No. 420/2021in FIR No. 49/ 2021

[15] 77 Eng, Rep. 250 KB, 1606

[16] PA Media Lawyer, Criminal libel and sedition offences abolished, https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/criminal-libel-and-sedition-offences-abolished/ (last visited on Jan. 13, 2010).