Author: Rahat Pardeshi
Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College
Abstract:
Sedition is an offense against the state and is covered by Indian Penal Code Section 124A. Terrorists punish any speech that causes hatred, humiliation or harm to the authorities, and attempts to incite violence and public disturbance in the country. If there is any criticism of not agreeing to and changing the government’s actions or procedures, it is not considered an act of rebellion. This section is widely criticized and misused, often to suppress opposition to the government. It is alleged that it restricts people’s right to freedom of speech and expression. Recently, progress has been made to eradicate crime. Sedition is the unlawful defiance of established authority through fraud or defamation of the government. In other words, subversion is planning to overthrow the government by violence, force, injury, or killing of an official. Extremism includes not only personal actions, but also statements or writings that incite or encourage the overthrow of the government.
Points to be Considered:
Punishment for sedition As per section 124A, punishment for sedition is to be one of the following. Imprisonment for up to 3 years Imprisonment for life Imprisonment for life along with fine Imprisonment for up to 3 years along with fine Only fine The decision regarding the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the convict is that of the judge presiding over the trial proceedings. What constitutes sedition Sedition can be summarized into the following points. There must be words, written or spoken, signs, visual representation, or any such act;Such an act should bring or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection. Such hatred, contempt, or disaffection must be towards any government established by law in India; and It must have led to the incitement of violence or public disorder. Elements of sedition Intention The intention of the person is of grave importance. It makes or breaks the case. The intention of the person as a whole is examined, taking into account his speeches, the context, and the general drift. The defendant’s intent is to incite feelings of hatred, contempt, or hostility toward the authorities. This desire must be accompanied by intent to incite violence or cause public disturbance. It is also important for people to understand that that action or force will cause the aforementioned reaction. In a trial, the purpose of the language used is correct, regardless of success. Therefore, one should be willing to act according to the above desire and knowledge. workunder this section includes speaking or writing words, making signs, displaying pictures or any other similar work. Fit na can be done by any property. For example, letters published articles video clips advertisement speeches etc. Other activities may involve the distribution, publication or broadcasting of harmful material.
Use of legal Jargons: The incitement of violence or public complaint is a tentative element of sedition. It’s necessary for the act of sedition to beget, or be likely to beget, violence or public complaint. There must be a reasonable link( nexus) connecting the contended inflammatory material and the violence or complaint. A far- brought supposition that the violence or public complaint could have been caused by the contended inflammatory material is n’t enough for the conviction of the indicted. It’s the job of the prosecutor to prove the propinquity of the link between the contended inflammatory material and the incitement of violence or public complaint. Explanation 2 of Section 124A rudiments of explanation 2 are A comment was made. The said comment must n’t lead to public complaint or violence.( Kedarnath Singh judgment) still, and it was made with the view of carrying changes in similar measures lawfully, also it’s covered under explanation 2, If any disapproving comment was made towards a government measure. Hence, a disapproving comment on the government’s fiscal programs with a view to starting a peaceful converse with the government and carrying their revision would not constitute sedition. Explanation 3 of Section 124A Explanation 3 is a tentative exception. Then, a disapproving comment made on an executive or other action of the government constitutes sedition only if it excites or attempts to excite abomination, disdain, or souring with the eventuality to beget public complaint or violence. The impunity under explanation 3 is dependent on the following factors Whether the comment expressed disapprobation of the government’s executive or other similar action; Whether similar comment, in fact, agitated( or attempts to excite) abomination, disdain, or souring towards the government; Whether these passions can induce the inclination to beget public complaint by an act of violence( Kedarnath Singh judgment).
Proof: The Legal History of Sedition Law Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. Government (1951)This was the first case to challenge the constitutionality of sedition in independent India. Referring to sedition in the Ramesh Tapper judgment, the High Court accepted the Federal Court’s definition of sedition in cases where violence was encouraged. violence or public nuisance. The decision states that the restriction of freedom of speech and expression is little more than a reasonable restriction. In this decision, it was determined that harassment is the restriction of freedom of speech and expression. Saber Reza v. Government (1955)In the Saber Reza case, the Allahabad High Court held that the public policy of restraining speech and expression that is offensive to the government cannot be overruled. . The court also interpreted it as a threat to national security when it is a threat to the system of government. A mere threat to a person holding a position in government, or an incitement of hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction with the system, is not a threat to the security of the state. government. That is why it is considered unconstitutional. Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)In a case against an agriculturist, the Allahabad High Court held that the law was unconstitutional. It was found that restricting the freedom of speech and expression was not justified because it could cause public harm. A democratic political ideology which is similar to the nature of the elites cannot be considered as a threat to the government. Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)The Supreme Court of India considered a constitutional case for the first time in this case. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions, the court considered it constitutional. But the court made a key addition to the Promotion Act. As interpreted by the Federal Court, this court held that harassment is only a right to have intent to incite violence. Even the exceptions to the crime of sedition only apply if it is not capable of disturbing the people. The court also laid down some guidelines to be followed when invoking section 124A.Common Cause v. Union of India (2016)A writ petition filed by NGO Common Cause was dismissed by a bench under the Chief Minister of India. The court said that Kedarnath projects should be followed by the authorities. The court recognized that the matter should be re-examined.S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)The Supreme Court of India agreed to consider the constitutionality of persecution. The central board is also reviewing the matter. The case is currently on hold pending further assessment. The court also announced that Fitna has been adjourned for further hearing..
Sedition An Outdated Law:
Laws were introduced as law in India by amending the IPC during the British rule. This colonial ideology was shown to suppress Indian freedom movements, rebellion and opposition to British rule in India. The term “Government established by law in India” was originally “Government established by law in British India”. Persecution was widely used to silence freedom fighters like Bal Gangadar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi through the law. Interpreted by the British Privy Council, it covered cases of non-violence, public disturbance, incitement to violence and public disturbance.In a modern democracy, dissent and opposition are important for the accountability of the authorities to the people. Freedom of speech and expression must be guaranteed by a democratic government, especially when it is against the government itself. Fitna does not bode well for the new political environment. Currently, according to the allegations of the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), it is being used to break the political agenda by harassing activists. The government uses it as a tool for policy and to prevent health objections. The guidelines laid down by the Kedarnath case are not being followed. Therefore, Indian courts and many judges called for the abolition of the old colonial law.
Misuse of Sedition laws in recent years: The category of terrorism equates “Indian Government” with “Indian people”. This leads to strong and powerful movements, even in the spirit of patriotism, which can be called nationalism. This part, regardless of the truth, will lead to criticism of the government. Corrupt governments and dictators use rebellion as a tool to assert and maintain their power. Vague words like “nothing”, “hate” and “discrimination” make it easier for authorities to deal with harassment. Based on those misinformation, charges were filed against the individual, and it took years before a court decision was reached. Until then, the suspect is being held without bail. Although the penalty for conviction for harassment is more severe than before, even life imprisonment. It serves as a system of deterrence and suppression of opposition to the government.According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data for the year 2020, the number of cases registered under Section 124A increased to 73 cases and 0 convictions and age in 2019.The number of cases registered is 93.The number of charge sheets filed under Section 124 A is 40.Only one person has been convicted for harassment.The trial of only 30 cases was completed.The rate of assessment under section 124A is 3.3%.Some recent cases of harassment include:Malayalam journalist Siddique Kapan was convicted of dissent while covering the Hatteras robbery case.Three Kashmiri scholarship students were arrested for allegedly celebrating the Pakistan cricket team’s victory over India in the T20 World Cup.
Case Laws:
State v Disha A. Ravi (2021) || India. The toolkit document was created by an organization called “Poetic Justice Foundation” which is a pro-Khalistan organization.The government said some of the information and links in the toolkit were malicious.Toolkits circulating on social media are offensive and show anger against the government.The government released details of the Zoom meeting with Disha, Shantanu and PJF producers.The government alleges that the defendant and Shantanu communicated through messaging apps.Shantanu lived in New Delhi during the Great Depression. Disha is now said to be planning to incite violence in India and the war criminals on 26 January 2021. peaceful protest or he engaged in violence. ?ArrestedThe court issued bail and declared that citizens of all democratic countries are guardians of the conscience of the state.They cannot be put behind bars because they are against government policy.The concept of interacting with people with bad credit is important. Just having a chance doesn’t mean anything.There is no direct connection between the suspect’s actions and the violence on January 26, 2021.The right to seek a universal audience without geographical barriers to communication is enshrined in Article 19.
Arun Jaitley v. State of U.P. (2015)ProceedingsArun Jaitley is a senior associate of the Supreme Court.The applicant wrote a very interesting article titled “NJAC Judgement-An Alternative View” on his Facebook page.This article is based on a Supreme Court decision that struck down the law that was passed to replace the NJAC Judicial Training College system.Judicial Magistrate Suvo Muttu took cognizance and booked him under Section 124A and Section 505 of the IPC.Issues raisedDid the content of the article lead to the commission of the offense of harassment under section 124 A?HeldThe Allahabad High Court set aside the judge’s order saying:The use of strong language against the government’s activities, work of public servants, not rebellion.It’s not a bad script. His only intention was to use his power of speech with the intention of establishing a balance between the two pillars of the country. Respect for justice is not harassment.
Sanskar Marathe vs The Maharashtra (2015)Facts:Asim Trivedi, a political singer and social activist, presented some videos at a public meeting in Mumbai.He posted some of the cartoons online on a website called Cartoons Against Corruption. He was charged with defamation of Parliament, the Constitution of India and the Ashoka statue as well as harassment under Section 124 and.It has been decided to drop the harassment charges against Asim Trivedi.
Written. Held The public hearing was dismissed when the government issued directions to the police prescribing the conditions to be followed while invoking section 124A. The court observed: Disloyalty to the government is not equivalent to expressing a strong opinion about its actions or actions for the betterment of the public order, or for warranting abolition, or the modification of such works or works. Halal meaning Freedom of expression includes freedom of speech and the right to express opinions. Open opposition to government policies and actions is not a reason to restrict speech. Freedom of speech and expression to express anger against corruption in the political system. It cannot be done when there is no incitement to violence and public disturbance.
Conclusion:
Sedition was a colonial law that supported the “king is supreme” principle. There is no place in the modern world where human liberties are at stake. In order to guarantee the exercise of the right to dissent, persecution must be abolished. Healthy opposition can help the development of the country, so it should not be punished. But violence is just an ax in the bucket of tools. Even after the repeal of the Freedom of Information Act, the right to protest continues to be restricted by misuse of the UAPA, NSA, antitrust laws, etc. Only then can India speak with its proper voice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Sedition?
If a person brings, or attempts to bring, hatred, contempt, or disrespect to the authorities, such conduct incites or provokes violence or public disturbance. It should be done through words, symbols, visual representations, or some similar process.
What is the penalty for harassment?
Punishment for harassment is Imprisonment for 3 years or Imprisonment for life, or Imprisonment for life and fine, Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine.
Why is violence old?
Terrorism is an old thing because it reflects colonial ideas and suppresses people’s right to free speech and protest.
Has violence been eradicated in India?
Violence has not been eradicated in India. For now, it is on hold pending the Supreme Court’s dismissal question.
Is violence unconstitutional?
According to previous decisions of the Supreme Court of India, violence is not against the Constitution. Violence is the only law that restricts the right to free speech and expression No, the fundamental right to free speech and expression can be restricted for the following reasons: National security National sovereignty and Integrity Contempt of Justice Harassment Public order Justice Morality Good relations in other countries incitement to crime under such laws.
