Sedition Law – A Misfit In Modern India
September 1, 2021
Constitutional law jurisprudence in India has dealt with the law of sedition for a long time, with views ranging from seeking to strip the provision from our statute books to advocating for keeping it in place and further enforcing it. Others think that it is important to keep the provision with a balance between national security and rights by implementing it within defined legal parameters. Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Rajya Sabha in a written statement that the Government has no plans to amend the sedition laws in the country to ensure that the Government has effective means to combat anti-national, secessionist, and terrorist elements. On the other hand, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana expressed concern over the misuse of the colonial-era sedition law. The Supreme Court has indicated that these laws need to be reexamined, thereby underscoring the importance of tracing the jurisprudence of Indian courts that have influenced modern interpretations of sedition laws.
Section 124A of IPC defines sedition as any words, whether spoken or written, or physical symbols, or visual representations, that may create hatred, contempt, or cause or cause to cause disaffection (including disloyalty or enmity) towards the government established by law. Under which, sedition is a criminal offense that can result in imprisonment for up to three years or even life imprisonment. A court may impose a fine along with imprisonment, as well as a prison if the law allows it.
In 1860, the British Raj enacted the Indian Penal Code. Section 124A is part of Chapter VI of the Code, which deals with crimes against the state. Sections 121A and 124A of Chapter VI were added in 1870. It was used heavily by the Raj to suppress activists seeking national independence, such as Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, who were found guilty and imprisoned.
A significant amount of time was spent weighing in on the various aspects of colonial law by the constitution framers after Independence. K.M. Munshi was one of the most ardent critics of India’s sedition law, arguing that it is a threat to democracy. His efforts and the persistence of Bhupinder Singh Mann led to the omission of the word sedition in the Constitution, as he argued that the necessity of democracy is criticism of the government.Nevertheless, the First Amendment passed by the government re-employed this law. According to Nehru, section 124A of IPC was highly obnoxious and should not be included in any laws passed by Parliament. Yet he never acted on this as, through the first amendment in 1951, he re-used and strengthened the sedition law, adding the expressions “friendly relations with a foreign state” and “public order” for restricting free speech.
A three-judge division bench of the Supreme Court recently said that “there is a need to define the limits of sedition”. In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against a journalistwho was accused of sedition. Taking into account the court’s landmark judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs. the State of Bihar, the court ruled that every journalist shall be protected from the charge of sedition.
The sedition law compromises the freedom of speech and expression, which is important in a democracy. Participation in debates and constructive criticism of government policies are a part of democracy. But the sedition laws have provided power to the executive branch so that it can indiscriminately wield power and control public opinion. As a tool to induce citizens to comply with government policies, the sedition law has become more and more popular. The sedition law impairs democracy when journalists are censored. Due to the sedition laws, the government is not accountable since it accuses its critics of sedition and ignores them.The main issue is the poor definition of the sedition law. The phrase “bring into hatred or contempt” or “attempt to excite disaffection” can be interpreted in many ways, in some cases empowering the police and government to harass innocent citizens. Since sedition law does not define what is seditious in addition to supplying broad outlines of what can be classified as seditious, the police are likely to use it to falsely accuse individuals because it does not guide as to which acts are seditious.
Due to its position as custodian of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court must strike down any legislation that violates any fundamental right, including that which affects freedom of expression, an essential component of democracy. The freedom of expression, however, is not without limitations. As long as the citizen does not incite people to violence against the Government, a reasonable restriction is imposed on his right to criticize the Government. The misuse of sedition laws by governments of all stripes including those ruled by the opposition is of serious concern. The judiciary must review this draconian law as a matter of urgency. Although abolishing this law might not be feasible, limiting its indiscriminate use and providing strong guidelines can do much to improve India’s democratic standing while safeguarding freedom of expression.
