SEDITION LAWS - POLITY
News: Re-examination
of sedition law in motion, consultations in final stage, Govt informs SC
What's in the news?
● The
government in the Supreme Court said it has initiated the "process of
re-examination" of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code and consultations
are in its "final stage".
Key takeaways:
● A
judicial decision on the question of striking down Section 124A may require an
examination of a 1962 Constitution Bench judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case.
● This
six-decade-old verdict of a five-judge Bench had upheld the legality of Section
124A though limiting its applicability to "activities involving incitement
to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause
disturbance of public peace".
Sedition:
● Sedition
is an offence incorporated into the Section
124A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870.
● Section
124A of the IPC says that whoever by words either spoken or written or by signs
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the government established by law, has committed the offence of sedition.
● The
offence is punishable with imprisonment
for life.
Why is Sedition - a concern?
1. Curbing dissent:
● It
is very often under criticism because Centre and the States have invoked the
section against activists, detractors, writers and even cartoonists seeking to silence political dissent by accusing
dissenters of promoting disaffection.
● It
has been invoked against several public
personalities, particularly those critical of the government such as
against Assamese scholar, Dr. Hiren Gohain, for allegedly saying at a public
meeting that demand for sovereignty might arise if the Centre ignores the
voices of the Assamese people against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.
● The
main reason behind the continuation of the Sedition Act after independence was
to prevent the misuse of free speech
(reasonable restrictions) that would be aimed at inciting hatred and violence,
but it is used to curb any dissent or
criticism of government or government policies.
Need for Abolition of Sedition laws:
1. Colonial tool:
● It
was introduced by the British to
suppress the freedom struggle and its existence at present is not justified.
● Even,
Britain itself abolished it 10 years ago, then why India still has the section
alive.
2. Vague definition and terms:
● As
pointed out by the Law Commission of India, is that the definition of sedition
does not take into consideration disaffection towards
a. the
Constitution
b. the
legislatures and
c. administration
of justice, all of which would be as disastrous to the security of the State.
3. Against fundamental rights:
● Section
124A has been invoked against activists, detractors, writers and even
cartoonists on several occasions to suppress their freedom of speech and
expression.
● Article 19 (1) of the
Indian constitution provides freedom of
speech as a fundamental right. Section 124A is against Article 19 (1).
4. Inconsistent with International conventions:
● India
ratified the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and misuse of sedition law under Section
124A and the arbitrary slapping of charges are inconsistent with the ICCPR.
5. Stand of Constituent Assembly:
● The
Constituent Assembly did not agree to include sedition in the Constitution. The
members felt it would curtail freedom of speech and expression.
● They
argued that the sedition law can be
turned into a weapon to suppress people’s legitimate and constitutionally
guaranteed right to protest.
6. Disregarding Supreme Court’s judgement:
● Supreme
Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case 1962, limited application of sedition to “acts involving intention or
tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to
violence”.
● Thus,
invoking sedition charges against academicians, lawyers, socio political
activists and students is in disregard of the Supreme Court’s order.
7. Repressing democratic values:
● Increasingly,
India is being described as an elected autocracy primarily because of the
callous and calculated use of sedition law.
Why Do Sedition Laws Need to be Re-examined and
Continued?
1. Security of the nation:
● Maoist insurgency and
rebel groups virtually run a parallel
administration. it would be dangerous to abolish it.
● These
groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution.
Thus keeping section 124A is important for Indian security.
2. Instability issues:
● Sometimes,
propaganda and facts are modified and used to destabilize the country’s peace
and polity by deliberately targeting government actions.
3. Misuse of fundamental rights:
● Freedom
of speech is protected through Article 19 (1) but it is not unlimited.
Sometimes speech is used as a tool to destabilize country polity and to promote
enmity in society.
● The
main reason behind the continuation of the Sedition act after independence was
to prevent the misuse of free speech (reasonable restrictions) that would be
aimed at inciting hatred and violence.
4. Maintaining unity and integrity:
● Sedition
law helps the government in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist
elements.
WAY FORWARD:
● India is the largest
democracy in the world and the right to free speech and expression is an
essential ingredient of democracy.
● The
definition of sedition should be
narrowed down, to include only the issues pertaining to the territorial
integrity of India as well as the sovereignty of the country.
● Section
124A should not be misused as a tool to curb free speech. Every irresponsible
exercise of the right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious.
While it is essential to protect national integrity, it should not be misused
as a tool to curb free speech.
● Dissent and criticism
are essential ingredients of a robust public debate on policy issues as part of
a vibrant democracy. Therefore, every restriction on free speech and expression
must be carefully scrutinized to avoid unwarranted restrictions.
● The
Law Commission recommended striking
a balance between sedition and the right to free speech, and providing
safeguards against the use of charges of sedition.