Author : Narottam Priyadarshi, Integrated Law Course, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
Abstract:
Sedition law, under the Indian Penal Code, is enshrined within Section 124A. Sedition law has long been in controversy, having its initial implementation during colonial rule. The relevance and application of sedition law today in India have been massive debates. This article delves into the origins of sedition law, its contentious application, opinions on the repeal, comparison with other global practices, and its potential impacts on Indian democracy and freedom of expression.
Introduction: The Genesis of Sedition Law
Sedition law in India has its origins in the colonial rule. Under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1870, this provision was codified as a crime wherein any act or omission was brought into hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law. This law the British employed to suppress dissent and check on the nationalist movements. Famous leaders who were prosecuted under it were Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi who termed it “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
Legal Jargons and Frame Work
The crime of sedition was cognizable, non-bailable and also a non-compoundable crime. It required proof of Words, signs, or visible representation causing hatred or contempt. An intent to incite violence or public disorder.
Key judicial interpretations, such as Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), clarified that criticism of the government sans incitement to violence would not constitute sedition. This landmark judgment attempted to balance freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
The Removal of Section 124A: Good and Bad
In May 2023, the Supreme Court of India declared Section 124A unconstitutional on account of its colonial origin and being misused. The Court admitted that it chills free speech and can strangle dissent. The judgment has raised widespread debate.
Advantages of Repeal:
Strengthening Free Speech: The abrogation of sedition law falls in line with India’s democratic values, allowing for increased expression.
It is quite evident that the authorities have always used sedition as a weapon to suppress critics, journalists, and activists without any substantial proof of incitement.
Modern Relevance: Ideas proliferate so rapidly in this digital age that penalizing dissent dilutes the marketplace of ideas.
Removal has Cons:
Threat to Stability: The critics state that the removal of sedition would embolden the anti-national elements.
Need for Alternate Laws: There is a demand to have stringent laws that would prevent a serious threat to sovereignty and public order.
Comparative Analysis: Sedition Laws in Other Countries
United Kingdom: In 2009, UK removed its sedition laws, claiming it to be outdated. However, it continues to have hate speech and terrorism laws that address such issues.
United States: Sedition laws are found under the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) but are construed narrowly. Courts provide robust protection of free speech under the First Amendment.
Australia: Sedition provisions were redrafted under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2005) to counter terrorism threats rather than suppress dissent.
China: Sedition laws are construed broadly, often to suppress dissent and criticism of the Communist Party.
Case Laws and Judicial Opinions
Several landmark cases have thus moulded the discourse on sedition:
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962): The Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 124A, placed a limiter on the application when it said such acts involved incitement to violence or public disorder.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) : Slogans that said “Khalistan Zindabad” is not sedition as incitement to violence not found.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Court declared Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness and abuse, strengthening free speech.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021): The Court reiterated that criticism of government policies does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence.
Impact Post-Removal in Bharat Nayay Sanhita (BNS)
Cases filed under Section 124A are withdrawn or transferred to alternative provisions post-removal. Activists, journalists and political opponents, who were hitherto charged with sedition, feel relieved. However, the states asked for amendments in the existing laws to address public order and national security concerns.
The Evidence: Sedition as a Misused Tool
Empirical data shows how this law is misused :
According to NCRB, sedition cases have risen by 160% between 2016 and 2020, while the conviction rate has remained miserably low.
Charges against environmental activist Disha Ravi for a social media toolkit exemplified the high-handedness of the authority.
Examples like these warrant judicial protection against such misuse.
Opinion: Balancing Free Speech and Security
While the repeal of Section 124A is a liberal step, it needs to be balanced. The alternative provisions have to safeguard the person against the real threats of national security without violating the civil rights. Awareness and judicial vigilance remain much needed to protect democracy.
Conclusion
The removal of sedition law marks a watershed moment in India’s legal and democratic history. It depicts a shift towards greater tolerance of dissent and robust protection of civil liberties. However, the need for an alternative framework to address genuine threats remains paramount. India must learn from global practices where laws are neither draconian nor ineffective. This will create a society where freedom and security coexist harmoniously.
FAQS
Q1: What is Section 124A IPC?
A: Section 124A of the IPC has defined the act or words bringing into hatred, contempt, or disdain against the government established by law.
Q2: Why is the sedition law withdrawn?
A: It is deemed unconstitutional on grounds of its colonial origins and as it is used with highhandedness, with chilling effects on free speech.
Q3: What is the substitute of the sedition law in India?
A: No direct substitute. There is other provision in IPC and UAPA for tackling connected issues.
Q4: How does India’s approach compare globally?
A: While countries like the UK and Australia have repealed or modernized sedition laws, others like China retain stringent provisions. India’s decision aligns more with liberal democracies.
Q5: What is the future of free speech in India post-sedition law?
A: The repeal bolsters free speech but necessitates judicial and legislative vigilance to balance freedom with security.
