INTRODUCTION
Offences
against the state are amongst the common Penal provisions enforced in many
countries. In the English common Law, publication
of seditious writing (seditious libel) or the utterance of seditious speech
(seditious words) was made a crime long time ago. Treason, Sedition,
sabotage, espionage and terrorism are some of the very popular offences against
the state. Treason amongst all is of highest degree and is ultimately
punishable with death.
LAW
OF SEDITION IN INDIA
In
simple words, sedition is the offense of
organizing or encouraging opposition to government in a manner such as in
speech or writing. Though, it may have same ultimate effect as treason but is
generally falls short of more dangerous offences constituting sedition.
Sedition in Indian Law has been effective since 1870 when it was introduced
by Sir James Stephen.
Gandhi
when charged of sedition in 1922 called this provision as prince among the political sections of the Indian
Penal Code designed which suppresses the liberty of a citizen. According to
him, Law cannot manufacture or regulate affection of a citizen towards its
government. Unless the expression of disaffection contemplates, promote or
incite to violence, one should be free to express his disaffection to the
fullest. Jawaharlal Nehru also highlighted the provision as ‘obnoxious’ and
‘highly objectionable’ and ‘the sooner we get rid of it the better’. Strangely
it has never been pondered upon to cease this provision.
The Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Sedition (a
non-bailable offence) as:
“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 in India, 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.”
CASES OF SEDITION IN INDIA
Misuse of Sedition Law by government has been noticed in
various cases (before and after independence) since its introduction in penal
provisions.
As in 2014, while supporting Pakistan in a cricket match
against India, some students of Kashmir were charged with sedition. Data from
the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that 70 new cases of sedition
have been filed in 2018.[1]Also,
it is being predicted that around 190 cases of sedition have been recently filed
in 2019 amidst CAA protests. Hemant Soren (CM, Jharkhand) while withdrawing
sedition charges of some protestors against
CAA quoted that, "Law is not meant to suppress people's voice, but to create
a sense of security among the people. My government will respect law and
protect people". The
data also shows the increasing rate of sedition charges every year,Also it is
important to note that only four cases actually resulted in conviction in the
last four years.[2]
On January 14, 2019 ex-Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU) Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar and nine others were
charged by Delhi Police for the offence allegedly committed during a campus
protest three years ago. In case of headmistress,
Fareeda Begum and Najamunnisa, the mother of the child who allegedly made the
derogatory comment against the Prime Minister were arrested on January 30, 2020
by police and sent to judicial custody. In the very same case, police
questioned, harassed and intimidated children as young as 6 to 7 years and
other officials of schools for hours for merely participating in a play that
talked about the ill-effects of NRC.
CURRENT STATUS OF THE LAW
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath’s Case[3]
held the section constitutional and opined that an individual is charged with
the offence of Sedition only when the case arises that the words, written or
spoken, creates a tendency of disturbance of law or public disorder. The court
also held that a citizen has a right to appreciate or criticise the government
so long as he does not incite public disorder or violence against government
established by law.
Also, Allahabad High Court in 1959 held that the root of free
speech is being struck by the law of sedition.[4]Further
in Balwant Singh’s case[5],SC
held that mere raising of some slogans only a
couple of times which does not evoke reactions amongst public can neither
attract the provisions of Section 124A or Section 153A IPC and thus a more overt act was required to bring
home the charges under those provisions.
Subsequently, in Shreya Singhal
& Ors. V. Union of India (2015)[6],
the law laid down in Kedarnath’s case[7]
has been strengthened and reiterated, wherein the distinction between
‘advocacy’, and ‘incitement’, and how restrictions under Article 19(2) ought to
be strictly interpreted to not include ‘innocent speech’ were highlighted by
the court. In recent case of Common Cause v. Union of India[8],
SC ordered that authorities that while dealing with offences under 124A, it
shall be guided by principles laid down in Kedarnath’s Case.
Recently in August
2018, a consultation paper published by the Law Commission of India recommending
to re-think or repeal the Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that deals with
sedition. It has further suggested to invoke 124A only when it is done with the
intention to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Government with violence
and illegal means.
CONCLUSION-
IS THAT A RIGHT INFRINGER?
It is no more concealed that governments fulfilling its
political agendas have been continuously using the Law of Sedition to harass,
intimidate and to silent the dissenters. Ironically, this colonial relic has
been abolished in UK in 2009 but is still effective in India. Also, UPA
government which opposes the same law in recent times, when it is being misused
by BJP amidst CAA, had never pondered in repealing the same during their rule.
Vague laws like Sedition undermine the rule of law as the
door to selective prosecution and interpretation, based on discriminatory
policies of government officials is being opened by the same. Thus, the laws
like Sedition are rights infringer of freedom speech and expression has no
place in a democratic republic like India.
[3] Kedar Nath Singh v. State
of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955: [1962] Supp 2 SCR 76
[5]Balwant Singh And Anr. vs State of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
[7] ibid
[8] Writ Petitions Civil
No. 683/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment