For some time now we are seeing that in many cases sedition charges are being imposed. Ever since the Shaheen Bagh demonstration started in December 2019, its momentum increased. According to a report, 27 cases have been booked after Pulwama terror attack, 25 in Anti CAA protest, 22 after Hathras gang rape case and 6 sedition cases due to farmers movement.
On May 31, 2021, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court in Aomoda Broadcasting v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, gave an observation
“Everything said against the government cannot be treated as a sedition. We feel that the parameters of IPC sec 124A, 155A and 505 need to be interpreted in a new way. The freedom of the media should also be kept in mind while considering what should come under the purview of these sections.
Now the dispute is on the thing that it is not clear in the law that sedition charges will be applicable only for ‘Desh Droh’ or for ‘Raj Droh’.
Will criticizing the policies or any action of the government be considered as sedition?
If there is any occurrence of violence due to any criticism then only it will be considered as sedition.
There are many such questions which have been debated for a long time and the courts have also given their opinion from time to time.
We will know the answers to these questions in our discussion today.
The sedition law says,
“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 law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”
Which means
Whoever instigates, tries to incite anyone against the government, spreads hatred towards the government or incites to violate the orders of the government shall be deemed to be guilty.
Whether he has done this by speaking, by writing, by signs, by gestures or by any other form of expression, he shall be punished with imprisonment extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Governments use this section at many moments whereas many activists say that such a law should have no place in a democracy.
Many intellectuals believe that the right to criticize the government should be given, but if someone tries to destabilize a democratically elected government through lies or fake propaganda, then it should be considered as an anti-national activity.
It is easy to explain this thing theoretically but in practical situation it becomes very difficult to separate ‘criticism’ and ‘fake propaganda’. There is a very fine border line between the two.
Let us know about the history of sedition law.
Genesis of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code
At the time of British rule, the original draft of the IPC that Macaulay gave in 1860 did not contain sec 124A. Later in 1870 it was introduced by James Stephen and in the IPC Amendment Act 1898 some more modifications were made in this section.
The first case based on this section was filed in 1891. In Queen Express vs Jogendra Chunder Bose, a Bengali magazine said that if something is written against the government, then the author is liable for it, not publication. In the same case, they also challenged the sedition law. Here an article was published in the magazine against the policies of the British Government, in which the Age of Consent Act 1891 was opposed.
The Calcutta High Court believed that the publisher has equal responsibility for seditious content because the content spreads out.
The Calcutta High Court very clearly differentiated between ‘disapprobation’ (that is, legitimate criticism) and ‘disaffection’ (which refers to ‘any feeling contrary to affection’. hatred, animosity). The court said that there is a punishment for ‘disaffection’ in the law, so it does not hurt anyone’s rights.
In Queen Express vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897), the Bombay HC held that ‘disaffection’ was correctly defined by the Calcutta HC in the case of Jogendra Chundra Bose. Bombay HC said that it is a crime to express bad feeling against the government, it is not necessary to know its level. It is also not necessary that the offense will be decided on the basis of the consequences of seditious speech or article.
It is only necessary to know the intention of the offender, and to presume it, the content, audience and circumstances will be considered.
Whereas in 1917 the Division Bench of Bombay HC changed its previous decision in Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, saying that the intention of the accused should be defined on the basis of the impact of the alleged seditious speech on the public.
Mahatma Gandhi believed that sedition law is the most dangerous of all the political sections placed in the IPC. This is a law to suppress the liberty of citizens.
Jawahar Lal Nehru said that this is the most unpleasant and objectionable provision of any legal system, it should be removed as soon as possible.
Yet this law was not removed after independence.
Sedition jurisprudence in independent India
There has been a lot of debate in the Honorable Supreme Court regarding the sedition law. We will discuss on the observations which are there from time to time.
In the decisions of Brij Bhushan vs the State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras in 1950, the Supreme Court highlighted that,
If any law prevents our free speech because it will disturb the public order, then it is unconstitutional.
At the same time, the court said that unless the government is in danger of being overthrown, it cannot be considered as ‘disturbing of public order’.
Due to such decisions, the Government of India brought the first Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. In the Article 19(2), which defines the provisions prohibiting freedom of speech, was rewritten. Earlier there were four reasons in this clause to impose limits on free speech, the security of the State, defamation, contempt of courts, and decency and morality. Through the amendment, three more reasons were added to it, public order, relations with foreign states, and incitement to an offence.
In 1962, the constitutionality of Section 124A was challenged in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar. The Supreme Court in its decision upheld it and
Limit its use to those actions, in which there is an intention to disturb law and order or there is incitement to violence.
Charges such as aggression of words such as “very strong speech”, “vigorous words” or “strongly critical of the government” are not considered seditious.
In I995, Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab, the SC held that mere raising of slogans which did not result to elicit any response from the public would not amount to sedition.
The Law Commission of India published a consultation paper on “Sedition” on 30 August 2018, in which it said that in order to protect national integrity, it is necessary that the offense of sedition be retained but should not be used to suppress free speech.
According to a report by the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of cases filed under section 124A has increased by 160% between 2016 and 2019, while the conviction rate in these cases has come down from 33.3% to 3.3%. These figures show that the government is using this section to create unnecessary fear among the people.
Arguments in Support of Section 124A
- IPC sec 124A is very necessary to deal with secessionist and terrorist elements and to control anti-national activities.
- Government elected in a Constitutional manner is necessary for the stability of any state. IPC sec 124A is very important in preventing attempts to destabilize or topple such an elected government by violence.
- If there can be penal action in the contempt of court, then there should be a provision of punishment in the contempt of government also.
- There are also many districts in our country where Maoist and rebel groups run a parallel administration. Such groups openly spread violence to bring down the state government. In such a situation, the use of IPC sec 124A becomes necessary.
- Maybe in some cases the government misused this section and those cases were publicized a lot, but because of this it would not be appropriate to remove the section. Its utility should be kept in mind.
Arguments against Section 124A
- IPC sec 124A is a law made by British Rule at the time of slavery. Now we are a democratic country so such law should be removed. This law causes disruption in our exercising Right to Freedom of Speech.
- A good democracy requires dissent and criticism. They should not be taken as a sedition.
- Asking questions to people in power, criticizing or demanding their removal is a fundamental right in a democracy.
- The British government which made this law to suppress the voice of Indians, today they themselves have removed this law in their own country. So why should it not be removed in India now.
- The reasons for which this law is said to be necessary, “disrupting the public order” and “overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means, can be dealt with the other sections of IPC and UAPA 2019, which are sufficient for the purpose. Then it is not logical to continue 124A separately.
- In 1979, India has given its consent to an International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In this, some international standards were set to protect the freedom of expression. Whereas India is not following those standards by making unnecessary and uncontrolled use of the law of sedition.
Way Forward
The terms used in IPC sec 124A have a very wide meaning in themselves. Judiciary can give narrow line to them by interpreting these terms. Reasonability can be decided case to case, but due to the creation of a boundary line, its arbitrary use can be controlled.
We can also expect the government to invoke the offense of sedition only when national integrity is threatened.
With this, there will be a trust in the general public and they will be able to use their freedom of expression properly. Sometimes innovative and public interest ideas can also emerge from it.
Thank You
