This article has been written by Reet Babbar, a second year student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies.

What is Sedition?

Frequently in recent years, the term “sedition” has gained prominence as we frequently hear it being conversed in relation with controversial sides of politics or when there are societal unrests and since its outset more than 150 years ago, India’s sedition law has been routinely invoked by several succeeding governments. The Indian Penal Code contains a provision for sedition in Section 124A, although the law itself makes no attempt to define what sedition is, other than to elucidate what it entails. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code states that: “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, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

The provisions of Section 124A are anchored on the premise that any state, irrespective of its system of Government, needs to be endowed with the authority to condemn those who through their actions or words, compromise the security and interests of the nation, or propagate such thoughts of disloyalty that have the capacity to contribute to the disturbance of the state or to public divisiveness. The state’s own survival will undoubtedly be at peril if the justice system is undermined and as a result of it, maintaining the governance is a requirement for safeguarding the state’s integrity. 

Historical background

Since it was first codified into English law in 1590, the crime of sedition was brought to India during the British Raj and included in the Indian Penal Code in 1870 by Thomas Babington Macaulay. A significant challenge that the British confronted during the British Raj in India was that, after a certain period, Indians began publishing and conveying statements and newspapers to propagate the ideas of the anti-British movement calling for independence, while the British, on the other hand, lacked any laws against this kind of treachery by which they were able supervise these circumstances. Many freedom fighters frequently addressed speeches to the masses in an effort to persuade them to adhere to non-cooperation measures or to spur them to speak out against the hardships and atrocities that the British were perpetrating against them. The case against Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the one that essentially redefined the sedition law. The trial’s judgment widened the interpretation of the statute by equating dissatisfaction with disloyalty. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was compelled to go to the jail many times during the period because of this. After that, in 1922, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was put on trial for allegedly causing or attempting to cause dissatisfaction with the government at the time, which was then led by the Britishers. He was charged with stirring up trouble, but not in a violent way. In his admission of guilt, he said that the sedition law, under which he was “pleased to be prosecuted, is possibly the prince amongst some of the political provisions of the Indian Penal Code, intended to undermine the freedoms of the individual.” Following that, the issue of whether sedition was being used to suppress free expression during the pre-independence era frequently came up.

The term “seditious” was widely disputed upon when India gained independence and the Right to Freedom was being deliberated in the national assembly. The inclusion of the word “Seditious” was supported by certain leaders, such as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and C. Rajagopalachari, and condemned by others, such as KM Munshi and Somnath Lahiri. The term eventually was removed from the constitution, but remained and continues to be used in the Indian Penal Code.

Debate around Sedition – Constitutional Validity

Prior to independence, the British administration still believed that this rule was necessary since their sole goal was to repress the Indians without taking into account their opinions. However, as time evolved and our Constitution stated various fundamental rights after its enactment in 1950, it became clear that any law must adequately safeguard and focus on ensuring the rights, which are a precondition of a democratically elected government. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution allows all citizens to express and discuss their opinions and perspectives; however it is not limitless because there are some reasonable restrictions. The reasonable limitations are such that any such speech and expression should not threaten the country’s sovereignty, integrity, or unity.  A five-judge SC bench in the year 1962 maintained the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. According to Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, 1950, sedition places restrictions on the right to free speech, but the judge concluded that these restrictions were “reasonable” and could not be overturned. Justice P.B. Sinha explained in a judicial report that questioning on the government does not constitute sedition unless it is coupled with a provocation for violence or acts of instigation.

Nevertheless, the country has seen several instances of the law of sedition being misused or overused in recent times and the law is always a contentious provision because those who dissent with it perceive that the controlling government intends that we only discuss and express ideas that are favourable to them. The sedition FIR brought against the journalist Vinod Dua for his remarks on the Prime Minister’s mishandling of the COVID-19 controversy was recently dismissed by a two-judge bench of the SC in 2021. Even though Dua had criticized the management, Justice U.U. Lalit concluded that his remarks should not be classified as seditious. In addition, Dua’s appeal requested that the SC set up a committee to review FIRs filed against reporters. The Court upheld its prior ruling in Kedar Nath in its judgment in this case, but it declined to form a testing commission since doing so would violate the governmental branch’s prerogative.

Therefore, in my opinion, the provision should be repealed from the Indian Penal Code due to its consequences and the fact that it prevents people from even stating their opinion about the policies implemented by the government or any decisions that they take. It ought to only be implemented in the rarest of cases since it goes against the basic essence of a representative democracy.

Conclusion

The rise in sedition prosecutions over the past few years is evidence that the government is arbitrarily using this uncommon statute. The analysis proves unequivocally that Section 124A stands out for its massive abuse, subjectivity execution, ambiguity, and frequent usage as a weapon for harassing individuals for frivolous reasons. It is regrettable that these regulations have persisted after colonial control ended. The overview of how the sedition laws have been applied by the various Indian courts illustrates how outmoded they are in today’s day and age and provides some directions for its implementation. All people of a democratic nation like India are entitled to the fundamental freedom of speech and expression. The law of sedition may be used to limit this privilege in a prudent manner, but its scope is a key issue as arbitrarily accusing someone of sedition in our country is an action that is at odds with democratic ideals.

References

• Criminal Law, PSA Pillai, 12th Edition (2014).
• Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain, 6^th Edition (2011), LexisNexis Publication
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-sedition-cases-in-india/
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sedition-in-india-a-timeline/
• https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law/#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20sedition%20was,offences%20against%20the%20colonial%20state.
• https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/op-ed/201019/indias-freedom-fighters-fought-sedition-law.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-sedition-story-complicated-history-of-sec-124a-101626370928612.html
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50969306/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening