Sedition Law & the Ongoing Debate whether to Repeal or Retain

 History of Sedition law in India

India was ruled by the Britishers and the British made laws. The history of some of the laws can be traced to that period and sedition is one of them. Presently, there is a surge in cases under sedition which turns out to be fake, turning the eyes of the apex court towards the relevance of the law in the present context or whether it has outlived the time. Sedition law has old history defined under Section 124A of the IPC. Sedition as defined by Fitzgerald J. in R. v. Sullivan:

Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term and it embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the Government and the laws of the Empire. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and insurrection and to stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of justice into contempt, and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion.

Section 124A IPC is the bone of contention. The draft Indian Penal Code which was first drafted by Lord Macaulay in the year 1837 contained detailed provisions on the offence of sedition. However, the law criminalizing the offence of sedition was omitted from the original Indian Penal Code, 1860. Initially, it was introduced by the British Indian Government, preferably for arresting those people who acted against the British government. Later on in the year 1870 under section 124A, the offence of sedition was inserted on the suggestion of Sir James Stephen, the then Law Member due to constant rebel by Wahabis against the British Rule in India. Hence, to suppress such a rebellion section 124A was made an offence. IPC Amendment Act 1898, effected some more changes to bring it to the present form. Some more changes were introduced in 1937, 1948, 1950 and Part B States (Law) Act 1951. Punjab High Court in the Tara Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1951 EP 27, Section 124A struck down it constitutionally being contrary to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Article 19(1) (a) [1]by Wastson, CJ. To avert the constitutional difficulties, as a result of these cases, Constitutional First (Amendment ) Act 1951 added in Article 19 (2) two words of widest import, viz “in the interest of” and “Public order”, thereby including the legislative restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19 (2): Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Actions like speech or gestures by a person in oral or written form which expresses his disaffection towards the government of the state, with the aim to incite a group of people by hate speech & violence, would be considered a revolt against the government. Even after 75 years of independence, this law is in use. Statistically, the low conviction rate has put the survival of law under challenge. On the one hand, there are people who are in support of this law and on the other hand, who raise their voices to repeal this law. Journalists who act under freedom of speech were many times arrested under sedition until granted immunity by the apex court.

Important Case

Kedarnath Singh vs the State of Bihar

The appellant member of forwarding Communist Party, in this case, used offensive words against, the ruling party congress, saying:- The Forward Communist Party will expose the black deeds of the Congress Goondas, who are just like the Britishers; I tell you that no good will be done to you by this Congress Government; these Congress Goondas are banking upon the American dollars and imposing various kinds of taxes on the people today; the blood of our brothers Mazdoors and Kisans is being sucked. The capitalists and the zamindars of this country help these Congress Goondas. The case was filed under ss. 124A and 505(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The convicted person preferred the appeal in the High Court of Patna. The learned Judge observed that the charge against the appellant was nothing but vilification of the Government; that it was full of incitements to revolution and that the speech taken as a whole was certainly seditious. Further, the matter went to the Supreme Court about the constitutional validity of Section 124A and Section 505 of IPC and the matter was referred to the constitution bench are inconsistent with Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.

The case against Dua was registered in Himachal Pradesh merely hours after the Delhi high court had stayed further police action on an FIR registered by the Delhi police. The Delhi police’ case was also registered based on a complaint by a BJP leader. Last week, the Supreme Court had said in a different case that there is a need to definite the limits of sedition, noting that sections of the Indian Penal Code that deal with sedition require interpretation, particularly in the context of media freedom. The apex court’s observation came as it stayed coercive action against two Telugu-language news channels accused by the Andhra Pradesh police of sedition for airing the statement of an MP who had rebelled against the ruling YSR Congress Party in the state. The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat said the sedition FIRs by Andhra Police against channels TV5 News and ABN Andhra Jyoti appeared to be an attempt to “muzzle media freedom.”

Law Commission Report

Law Commission of India in its consultation paper brought out in its 42^nd Report on Indian Penal Code released in 1971 proposed new 124A as:-

• Changes are in the definition of the Government, which has been broadened to include Parliament, State, Justice and Constitution. Grounds of integrity and public order have been added. The punishment is proposed to be increased to seven years from three years.

Law Commission of India in its consultation paper on Sedition brought out on August 30, 2018, proposed the way forward based on:-

1. 1. The United Kingdom abolished sedition laws ten years back citing that the country did not want to be quoted as an example of using such draconian laws. Given the fact that the section itself was introduced by the British to use as a tool to oppress the Indians, how far it is justified to retain s.124A in IPC?
   2. Should sedition be not redefined in a country like India – the largest democracy of the world, considering that right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy ensured as a Fundamental Right by our Constitution?
   3. Will it be worthwhile to think of an option of renaming the section with a suitable substitute for the term ̳sedition‘ and prescribe punishment accordingly?
   4. What is the extent to which the citizens of our country may enjoy the right to offend‘?
   5. At what point the ̳right to offend‘ would qualify as hate speech?
   6. How to strike a balance between s.124A and right to freedom of speech and expression?
   7. In view of the fact that there are several statutes which take care of various acts which were earlier considered seditious, how far would keeping section 124A in the IPC, serve any purpose?
   8. Given the fact that all the existing statutes cover the various offences against the individual and/or the offences against the society, will reducing the rigour of s.124A or repealing it be detrimental or beneficial, to the nation?
   9. In a country, where contempt of Court invites penal action, should contempt against the Government established by law not invite punishment?
   10. What could be the possible safeguards to ensure that s.124A is not misused?

At the Crossroad of Law Of Sedition Must Be Amended or Repealed

• Sedition as defined under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been a subject of great dissatisfaction amongst advocates of unhindered freedom of speech and expression and critics of the Government. Initially, it became an instrument to terrorise the natives and implicate nationalist newspapers which disapproved of British colonialism. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Jogendra Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi were amongst the first prominent figures to be charged with sedition.
• According to the Bill introduced by Shashi Tharoor in 2015, it is increasingly being used to harass and intimidate journalists, human rights activists, artists and political activists, and illustrators, according to the whims of the members of the State and Central Government and other public institutions as was stated in Objects of Amendment Bill. Even though the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope and applicability of section 124A, in its landmark judgment in Kedar Nath Singh V/s State of Bihar case, where it linked sedition to a test of tangible evidence of actual harm, the lower courts and investigating authorities have continually overlooked this interpretation of the Supreme Court.
• Between 2016-19 the number of sedition cases rose to 160% and the conviction rate was found to be 3.3 %.  The following observation made headlines while the apex court was hearing on Sedition, “Unfortunately, the continuance of this law after 75 years…This government has been scrapping many obsolete laws. We don’t know why they are not looking into this law? Continuance of this law is a serious threat on the functioning of institutions and individuals’ liberty,” remarked a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana.

• Law is not static. As circumstances and conditions in a society change, laws are also changed to fit the requirements of society. At any given point in time, the prevailing law of a society must be in conformity with the general statements, customs and aspirations of its people. The object of law is an order which in turn provides hope of security for the future. Law is expected to provide socio-economic justice and remove the existing imbalances in the socio-economic structure and play a special role in the task of achieving various socio-economic goals enshrined in our Constitution. It has to serve as a vehicle of social change and as a harbinger of social justice.

[1] https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report42.pdf