Sedition Law In India (124a Of Ipc)

Sedition is once again the subject of debate as the Supreme Court hears appeals challenging it, A request was made by the Editors Guild of India and Major General (retired) S.G Vombatkere, stating the law causes a chilling effect on free speech and is an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech expression(Article-19) which is a fundamental right. On Monday, the central government asked for one more day to file a petition challenging the constitutionality of the sedition charge under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

 

[124A] Sedition - Any person who by words, or spoken, or written, or by signs, or by visible signs, or otherwise, incites or attempts to incite hatred or contempt, or incites or attempts to incite disaffection towards the lawful government, shall be punished and imprisoned for life, which shall include fine, or imprisonment of up to three years. 

 

Definition 1.—The word "dislike" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Definition 2- Statements that do not accept the government's process to obtain their change through legal means, without inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt or apathy, are not offenses under this section. 

 

Definition 3.—Statements expressing disapproval of administrative or other governmental action without inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt, or apathy, are not offenses under this section.

 

 Sedition is a cognizable,non-bailable, noncompundable offense. An accused person is prohibited from holding government jobs and also debarred from holding passport.

 

The British historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay, in 1837, defined sedition as the act of any person, by word of mouth, spoken or written, or by sign, or by representation, or otherwise, that induces or attempts to incite hatred or otherwise contempt, or incite or attempt to incite disaffection towards the constitutional government of India.

 

 The charge of sedition, which appeared in Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code in 1870, was enacted by the British government as a primary measure to suppress the writings and speeches of prominent freedom fighters. 

 

The writings of leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lokmanya Tilak and Jogendra Chandra Bose who ended up being tried under the Sedition Act for their statements against the British government.

 

According to a 2018 report by the Law Commission of India, at the time the Constitution was being drafted, the Constituent Assembly opposed the inclusion of sedition as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression under Article 13. He saw this arrangement as a shadow of the colonial era which should not see the light of day in free India. However, the offense still falls under Section 124A of IPC.

 

The Commission recommends the retention of section 124A, However, it should be considered whether the term "sedition" can be better replaced. In addition, whether the "right to offend" qualified as hate speech also needs to be considered, the report says. 

 

It also recommends striking a balance between sedition and the right to free speech, and providing safeguards against the use of charges of sedition. 

 

The report concluded: “In a democracy, singing songs from the same hymn book is not a benchmark of patriotism. People will be free to show their love for their country in their own way. To do the same, one can engage in constructive criticism or debate, showing weaknesses in government policy. The words used in such thinking may be cruel and disagreeable to some, but that does not make the actions described as rebellious,also  Section 124A should be invoked only in cases where the intention of doing anything is to disrupt the society or overthrow the government through violence and illegal means.

 

According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2020 (NCRB data, in 2018, 70 cases of sedition were filed; however, not a single person was convicted. Similarly, in 2019, 93 cases were filed, while only two people were convicted. Similarly in 2020, 73 cases were filed and no one was convicted. 

 

Manipur filed the highest number of sedition cases (15) in 2020, followed by Assam (12), Karnataka (9), Uttar Pradesh (7), Haryana (6) and Delhi (5).

 

•  Environmental activist Disha Ravi, for distributing a "toolkit" for global Internet campaigns supporting farmers' protests.

 

• Against activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Gulfisha Khatoon, Ishrat Jahan, Safoora Zargar and Meeran Haider, for alleged Inflammatory remarks in anti-CAA meetings and premeditated conspiracy to create riots in DELHI in February 2020.

 

• against journalist Siddique Kapan, for visiting Hathras, where a 19-year-old Dalit woman was raped and allegedly linked to the Popular Indian Front (PFI).

 

• Actors Sudha Bharadwaj, Vernon Gonsalves, Varavara Rao, Hany Babu, Anand Teltumbde, Shoma Sen, Gautam Navlakha, Surendra Gadling, late Father Stan Swamy, Arun Ferreira, Rona Wilson, Mahesh Raut and Sudhir Dhawale, for comments at An Elgaar Parishad meeting before violence in Bhima Koregaon on the occasion of the bicentenary of the 1818 battle.

 

In this case, the appellant was charged with sedition for certain statements he made In his speech, he called CID officials as "dogs" and government officials as "Congress goondas", whose electorate is the fault of the people. He encouraged the people to strike against the government of the day and expel them like the British. For this, he was convicted under Section 124A by the Magistrates Court of Bihar. He appealed to the Patna High Court, but his case was upheld. He then obtained a special right to approach the Supreme Court, where his main argument was that the prohibition of Section 124A on "freedom of speech and expression" exceeded the legislative power as defined in Article 19 (2). 

 

• The Supreme Court said that Section 19 (2) of the Constitution, which prohibits certain laws and "freedom of speech and expression", in 1951 was amended to include the public order. This means that any speech that threatens to violate public law or state security is a crime against society and cannot be sanctioned. That's what sedition does.The court said that sedition is a crime to prevent the overthrow of the government by inciting contempt or hatred towards it, which can undermine the stability of society. However, he explained that a citizen is allowed to criticize the government as long as he does not intend to cause public unrest or violence. 

 

Let us look at Tara Singh Gopi Chand VS State 1951, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the constitutionality of Section 124A. 

 

In this case, he disputed this, saying that the crime of sedition was illegal in India after the end of foreign rule, and declared that Section 124A should be declared void because it was against the "right to speech and expression" of Article 19 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court accepted the contention that section 124A was unconstitutional and violated the "fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression". He canceled this arrangement and, at the same time, dropped the charges against Tara Singh and ordered his release. 

 

• Confronted with such views against the anti-sedition laws, the Indian government appealed to the Supreme Court. For the first time, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of colonial era law in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962).

 

The Supreme Court gave its decision on the basis of the conclusion that certain types of restrictions on "freedom of speech and expression" are necessary to maintain public order and are essential to prevent any threat to the integrity and stability of the Nation. It is true - our basic abilities cannot be absolute; they must be kept within reasonable limits to ensure that they do not harm others around us. However, criticism of the state is an essential part of democracy, which the courts have emphasized. Problems arise when sedition laws are used against citizens and used to restrict freedom of speech so that the public can quietly respect whatever the government says.

 

• Protecting the integrity of the nation: sedition laws are necessary to protect and preserve the stability of the government and to prevent speeches and statements intended to cause public unrest. All these are necessary to ensure the integrity and safety of the country.

 

• Prohibition of hostile activities: Some areas of the country face hostile activities and insurgency by insurgent groups, such as the Maoists. They are inciting violence and trying to establish similar governments in the region. They are openly advocating the overthrow of the government for their own benefit. 

 

• Contempt: The Government of India is a statutory authority. Therefore, there must be a restriction on showing unwarranted contempt or mockery of the government beyond a certain limit. If contempt of court calls for criminal prosecution, contempt of government should too.

 

• Political tools of persecution: The British added sedition laws to the Indian Penal Code in 1870. It is not surprising that this provision was intended to prevent the resistance of many Indians to foreign rule. Many freedom fighters were charged under this law, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. 

 

• Unclear law: The law is not clear, as it carries vagueness. It is unclear what may or may not qualify as indifference in different situations. This means that laws can be interpreted differently according to the wishes and interests of the authorities concerned. One of the most recent examples is the arrest of a Manipur student activist for posting on social media about the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

 

• Non-compliance with international commitments: India has signed various international treaties and covenants, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979. It sets international standards for the protection of freedom of expression around the world.

 

• Unnecesary provision: There are other provisions in the Indian Penal Code like Unlawful Acts (Prevention) Act 1967 of the public law that criminalises overthrowing of government by violent and illegal means.

 

 An example is Section 121A, which criminalizes conspiracy to attack the government. Therefore, since there are other provisions that break the perceived threat against the government, Section 124A is not necessary.

 

 • As we have seen above, the weaknesses of this law seem to outweigh the benefits.

 

However, due to the Supreme Court's decision and the government's opinion on this law, it seems that this section will not be removed anytime soon. But, it will be possible to make some changes in the law after proper investigation and research.  

 

Although the sedition law cannot be repealed, it can be amended to stop its application only in cases where the words or actions of individuals are highly hateful and is a serious threat to the security and integrity of the nation.

• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the issue before the court was "Under what circumstances can the government restrict the speech and expression of a person when he utters words that appears offensive?'. While of immediate concern was restrictions imposed under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 , this also has major implications for Section 124A, which states in this case. The court said that a line must be drawn between support and speech incitement. The law, through its guarantee of "freedom of speech and expression", allows the state to restrict this right not when a person advocated to use force or violate law, but only when he incited or attempted to incite the same. 

 

It is clear that sedition is a controversial concept; it must strict balance with the "right to freedom of speech and expression". While no citizen should be allowed to spread irrational hatred among the people and incite violence against the government (especially in a country founded on the principle of non-violence), every citizen should have the freedom to express their opinion about the government. The interpretation given by the Indian courts and the actual implementation of this law sometimes differ, which led to the interpretation of the imposed law as "draconian". At a time when citizens are becoming more aware of their rights and freedoms and have a growing sense of responsibility in the democratic system, now may be the perfect time to consider changes to this law.