 |
| picture credit @legalpadlaw |
This article is written by TANVI MISHRA, 1st year law student from Army Institute of Law, Mohali and she is currently pursuing BALLB.
INTRODUCTION
In general, sedition is treated as something which is harmful for public tranquility and can result in public disorder. According to Indian law, words, either spoken or written, signs, visual representation, etc. which can bring hatred or contempt amongst the people for the government established by law amounts to sedition.
Sedition is a criminal offense. It is given under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Any person involved in sedition can be punished with imprisonment extending from three years to life imprisonment. The court also has the discretion to levy fines along with imprisonment.
So, summing up section 124A of IPC, “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visual representation or otherwise, brings or attempts to excite dissatisfaction towards, the Government established by law in India, shall me punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine maybe added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”(1)
But, this doesn’t mean that we cannot criticize the government for their wrong decisions and actions. But, the way in which we criticize matters. While going against the government, we should not adopt ways that can be harmful for the peace prevailing in the country. The words or signs should not be enough to incite violence among the public.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SEDITION LAW
In colonial rule, when the British ruled over India, the sedition law was basically introduced in the year 1870 by James Stephen. The motive behind this law was to suppress the people who were raising their voices against the malicious acts done by the British in India. This section was not originally present in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Macaulay.
The first offence of sedition was reported in 1891. In the case of Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose & Ors.,(2) the editors of a Bengali magazine were charged under the sedition law for publishing the article regarding the Age of Consent Act, 1891 brought into force by the British.
For this, the publishers contended that writing any seditious article can be wrong according to the law per se but not publishing it. The Calcutta High Court held that the publication is published with an intent to circulate the thoughts and so this cannot be a valid reason to do away with your liability, but along with it, the Court also clarified the difference between legitimate criticism and disaffection and stated that disaffection is only punishable as sedition law cannot take away the rights of people.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was once tried for sedition when according to the court he incited violence amongst the public which resulted in the death of two British officials. The court held him for creating disaffection. Along with it, the Bombay High Court, in this case, Emporer v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak(3), somewhere disallowed all the legitimate criticism as well.
IS SEDITION LAW CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
The first case which dealt with the constitutional validity of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State.(4)
While this case was going on, India was already an independent nation. According to the bench of the Punjab High Court, the constitutional provisions remains superior to the British precedents and so it was held that sedition law was, in some way or the other, a restriction on Article 19 of the Indian constitution i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression which is a fundamental right. And so the law was said to be unconstitutional.
But, later on the parliament which was formed amended the constitution of India. They came up with the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
In the new Act, they came up with new grounds according to which the right to freedom of speech and expression and all other fundamental rights could be restricted reasonably.
This amendment Act was put to test even two years from when it was introduced. In the case of Debi Soren & Ors. V. The State,(5) there was an Adivasi leader. He was accused for sedition. It was claimed that he gave an inflammatory speech against the government. The Patna High Court’s division bench again clarified the difference between disapprobation and disaffection. The Court held that only disaffection can lead to public disorder.
Also, the High Court ruled in favour of the constitutionality of the sedition law and stated that it does not restrict the right to freedom of speech and expression.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT
KEDARNATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR CASE(7)
This case has immense importance in the history of sedition law. The decision was given by a five-judge constitutional bench of the honorable Supreme Court of India. In this case, there was a political leader from the forward communist party of Bihar. He was charged for giving insulting speeches against the ruling government which was the Indian Nation Congress.
The court held that firstly Kedarnath Singh criticized the government and not the State and secondly, expressing once opinion and giving speeches do not come under this law until and unless it has developed a feeling of hatred in the hearts of the people which could further incite violence. In this case, the speeches given by Kedarnath did not result in any sort of violence and so he was not held liable.
MISUSE OF SEDITION LAW
The terms used under the sedition law such as ‘disaffection’ are completely vague. The country which brought this law in India i.e. Britain has abolished it in their own country. It is a colonial legacy and doesn’t fit the current situation when we a democracy.
In the recent times, there have been a lot of cases of sedition registered against intellectuals, human rights activists, filmmakers, university teachers, students and journalists.
At times, the government might try to oppress the individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression in the name of sedition law.
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA ON SEDITION LAW
A consultation paper on sedition was published by the Law Commission of India on 30th August 2018. Though the commission retained the fact that the sedition law is of immense importance in order to protect the integrity of our country. But, it also mentioned that this should not be used as some tool to restrict the fundamental right of the citizens of India given under article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
NATIONAL CRIME RECORDS BUREAU
According to the data of the national crime records bureau there has been a significant increase in the number of cases pertaining to the sedition law under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. There has been an increase of around 160% between the years 2016 to 2019. On the other hand the conviction rate decreased from 33.3% to 3.3% for the same time period.
This clearly proves that the state has been somewhere misusing law by filing baseless cases. If this continues, then it will be a threat to the fundamental rights and more importantly to the essence of the constitution of India. And so, there is an urgent need to review this law and create a balance between sedition and the right to speech and expression of the citizens.
ANALYSIS
So, sedition is basically punishing those who incite violence by imbibing a feeling of hatred in the people against the government. It is somewhere the right way to maintain tranquility. But, the laws and the ground reality, both are very different.
The British brought this law in our country in order to suppress the people and prevent them from raising voice against the British officials. Even if the people tried to question any action taken by them and tried to protest, they were punished under the sedition law.
Now, it has been a long time since our country got independence. But, don’t you think that even today the laws can be misused?
Is protesting against the bills and acts by the government a wrong thing to do? For example, in the case of CAA, many were charged under the sedition law. It is right to punish those who incite violence but on the other hand, it is also the duty of the government to consider the views of the public, otherwise it would automatically result in rage and violence.
It has been quoted by the Supreme Court of India in the Farooq Abdullah’s case,(7) that “Expression of views which is dissent and different from the opinion of the government cannot be termed as seditious.” The petitioners were charged with a fine of Rupees 50,000 for making an unsubstantiated charges of sedition.
It was in news recently that the Yogi Government slapped seven sedition cases on former IAS Officer Surya Pratap Singh for tweeting about the floating dead bodies in the river Ganga. But, is it wrong to express your views of something which is not right? Here, the government is trying to suppress the views of a former administrative officer by charging him under the sedition law. This is something that the British did as well. Then what is the difference between the two?
Due to this growing trend of filing sedition case, in a suo moto case, even Justice Chandrachud remarked sarcastically that whether any court case of sedition is filed against the news channel for showing a dead body which was being thrown into the river Ganga in Uttar Pradesh.
We and the government needs to understand that having a different viewpoint on a certain matter does not result in sedition. We are a democracy and we, the people of India have voted our representatives in order to represent us and bring new laws and rules for the betterment of the society. We don’t vote in order to be ruled by the government just like some monarch or a dictator who charge the people under sedition law for expressing dissent which sometimes often leads to violence since the people don’t get opportunity to be heard. If the sedition law is so much helpful and in effective use by the government, then they should also focus on the right to speech and expression and people should be provided with proper opportunity to be heard before charging them under sedition law. It is not just in the hands of the public to prevent violence but also with the government.
The culprits must be punished but the difference between freedom of speech and expression and sedition must be very clear, both to the people and the government. The government should consider the views of people pertaining to India at least, if not in the foreign matters. This will be the best solution to maintain peace rather than charging everyone under sedition law who goes against the government. Instead of creating peace, it will lead to more and more hatred towards the government and there will be chances of development of anti-government communities and even anti-nationals, in the worst-case scenarios. We have had to face a lot of violence, we lost the life of many Indians and the freedom fighters to be free from the control of British. We need to respect the sacrifice which they did for us and for our nation and should look after the heritage, this free India, provided to us by them.
CONCLUSION
Currently, in our country the protests causing violence are treated as terrorist activities, right to freedom of speech and expression is treated as the right to defame others like in the recent case of film critics Kamaal R Khan and Salman Khan, the dissent expressed towards the government is charged under the sedition law, and so on.
What we can conclude is that awareness is the need of the hour. People and even the government is not able to make out and understand the thin lines between two laws or provisions. Just like in the case of sedition law, we need to differentiate between the “just criticism” and “sedition”. There is a need to clarify the vagueness of the terms “disapprobation” and “disaffection”. We are a democratic country. We earned democracy, it is a gift provided to us by the freedom fighters and so we need to preserve it and learn from all the mistakes we ever made.
CITATIONS
1. The Indian Penal Code,1860
2. (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35
3. (1917) 19 Bom LR 211
4. (1951) CriLJ 449
5. (1954) CriLJ 758
6. 1962 AIR 955
7. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 162
0 Comments