Sedition Law and the Role of Judiciary
________________________________________________________________________________
This Blog is written by Shaurya Nagpal from Bennett University, Greater Noida. Edited by Prakriti Dadsena.
________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The law of sedition in India has a historic significance with it first being introduced in the year 1870 in the British era. Initially, when this law was brought in, the primary objective of the British Government was to suppress the criticism and protests against their policies. Sedition can be best understood as an offence which tends to bring about hatred or contempt accompanied with inciting violence against the government and thereby disrupting public order This law since its inception has been controversial in nature in but over the years, the law has been widely interpreted along with a critical understanding of the term sedition so as to safeguard the rights enshrined under the Constitution. However, it is crucial to note that the concept of sedition has not been covered in the Constitution and only falls under the ambit of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In India, the law of sedition as covered under Section 124-A of the IPC has been highly debated in the recent past with its validity and extent in question largely due to its conflict with the constitutional provisions of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). In such cases, the courts have adopted a wider approach and played an important role by adopting a balanced approach by evolving and adequately preserving the right to freedom and liberty of an individual and upholding the basic values and principles of democratic nation.
SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT:
Sedition as under Indian Penal Code is an offence that is against the State. Sedition was used as a strong tool of suppression in the Colonial era with the British Government widening is scope to tackle any hostile criticism arising due to changing political scenario of the country during freedom struggle. Enacted in November 1870, as a ‘preventive measure’ by the British rulers, it not only aimed to control the inciting of violence and public disorder but also took the publishers and journalists under its ambit, who could be charged under seditious libel. Moving on, in the post-independence era, it was asserted by the human rights group that this provision lies in clear violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression and is often brought into play to restrain political dissent and dissatisfaction under the name of national security and disaffection. Since 1947, sedition has been interpreted in different ways by the courts and the outcomes have varied from case to case. In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the apex court had upheld the validity of the law but iterated the fact that there lies a distinction between speech and writing which incites violence or hatred and strong dissent or criticism of the government. A critical analysis of this law puts light on the fact that the law of sedition is essential in maintaining public tranquillity and national security, however, it must be curtailed and its application be limited to intent or acts aimed to disturb law and order which have the potential to damage the national sovereignty.
However, the law of sedition has an important impact till date with various cases being filed and the courts delivering a significant understanding on this matter. In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab in the year 1995 the Hon’ble Supreme court quashed the charges of sedition against the accused for raising anti-India slogans and held that mere raising of slogans which have no effect on the public order and do not provoke or incite violence cannot fall under the ambit of sedition. The courts from time to time has emphasised on the fact that such a broad scope of Section 124-A of the IPC goes against the democratic structure of the country. There have been instances of misuse of this provision from charging the students to cartoonists to authors to even public protesting against the policies of the government as in the state of Tamil Nadu where protesters were charged with sedition for protesting against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. It has been observed that charges of sedition have been slapped more often and easily but are rarely found to be guilty and are eventually acquitted of this offence but undergoing the trial is itself a punishment and thereby paves way for grave violation of human rights for merely raising a voice of descent against the government. In the case of Kanhaiya Kumar, the apex court stated that holding a different view from the government’s acceptable views shall not be an anti-national act and this cannot be a reason to charge someone under the criminal offence of sedition. This puts light on the fact that rate of prosecution under Section 124-A is very low but the rate of filing of cases has been very high which puts this law under much discussion for its exploitation to hamper large anti-government movements and intimidate activists and protestors.
PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATURE:
The law of sedition has been dealt under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been defined as any words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, that could bring or attempt to bring either hatred, or contempt, or excite or bring to excite any disaffection towards the Government established by law. Sedition thereby has been declared as a serious criminal offence with punishments from a maximum imprisonment of three years to even imprisonment for life. Furthermore, the courts can even levy fine along with imprisonment term. Moreover, to be charged under this offence, it is not a requisite condition that one should incite violence or even attempt to do so in actual sense, and mere feeling of hatred or contempt against the government shall be sufficient to constitute sedition under Section 124-A. Also, intention is an essential factor under Section 124-A of the IPC. In such instances, the prosecution is not bound to prove the mala fide intention through direct and strong evidence but rather understand the intention of the accused through his/her conduct to charge the accused under sedition.
CASE LAWS
Sedition has been a widely discussed topic and the courts have adopted a cautious approach so as to bring about a better understanding of the subject and subsequently give a broader perspective to the law of sedition over the years:
The Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1898) ILR 20 All 55
This was one of the well renowned cases in the history of sedition law in India and was one of the first case of conviction under sedition. In this case Bal Gangadhar Tilak who was a renowned lawyer was charged with sedition twice in different occasions, in 1897 for the first time for the speeches he gave for encouraging people to create violence against the British officials where two officers died. This was on of the first case where section 124A of IPC was interpreted and applied. The second time was in 1990 when he wrote a seditious article in his newspaper ‘Kesari’ which in the view of government was seditious and ‘disaffection’ was defined in this case.
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar A.I.R 1962 S.C. 255
This has been one of the landmark judgements by the Supreme Court where the court had upheld the constitutional validity of Sedition law under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In this case the appellant Kedar Nath was convicted under charges of sedition under section 124-A of IPC for inciting and spreading hatred against the then ruling government and criticizing the government in his speech. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court then the appeal was filled in the Supreme Court where the appellant put forward the argument that such provision under Section 124-A was not in accordance with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The question here was that weather Section 124-A of IPC comes under reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court in a very comprehensive manner laid down its judgements with explaining the ambit of Article 19. The bench in the judgement held that Section 124-A puts restriction on the freedom to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19(2) which includes restriction against the ‘public order’ any restriction in accordance with article 19(2) will be held constitutionally valid. The court here noted that Government established by Law is different from any other individual persons, the court state that sedition includes words spoken written or expressed by a person to incite disturbance in the public peace by violence and disturbing public order. The court iterated that any such restriction is constitutionally valid if it prevents such speech in interest of protecting public order and upheld Section 124-A constitutionally valid.
Dr. Binayak Sen vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2007)
In this case Binayak Sen an activist was convicted under Section 124A of the IPC for sedition for aiding and helping the Naxalites in and around Chhattisgarh and for inciting and provoking people against the state which resulted in kicking of people of armed forces in those areas. The appeal went till the Supreme Court, and he was released on bail as there was not enough evidence to charge him under sedition, the grounds were not specified but the court here noted that merely sympathizing does not amount to sedition.
Vinod Dua v Union of India LL 2021 SC 266
In this instant scenario FIR was filed against Vinod Dua, a well-known journalist, under Section 124A, 505, 268 and 501 of IPC for making criticizing remarks against the Government and Prime Minster of India regarding their handling of the covid crisis in 2019 and the handling of the huge migrant crisis, The appeal went to the Supreme Court where the court had quashed the FIR against him, the court here noted that the statements that Dua made were not to incite any violence or disturbance and disorder among the people. it was further stated by the court that he will come under the protection of a journalist as laid down under Kedar Nath v State of Bihar, he will be protected by Section 124-A and Section 505 of the IPC, and hence the FIR was quashed against him for Sedition.
ANALYSIS
The law of sedition has been a controversial topic and has been highly debated. Sedition is considered a grave criminal offence under Section 124-A of the IPC. It is considered to be a crime against the society along with a restriction to right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the law of sedition has been considered to be in contravention of the essence of democracy. A democratic structure grants the citizens the right to freedom to criticise the government, the policies and administration. It is opinionated that the people must have the right to speak up against their own representatives and uphold the true spirit of democracy or else there shall lay no difference between a democratic nation and a monarchy. It can also be seen that sometimes this law is misused by the courts by taking a broader interpretation of sedition. This provision under 124A IPC is a really a powerful section as not only the punishment is given for incitement by words or writing but also the attempt to do any such thing, this section can punish on the basis of state of mind of a person whereas the section only mentions about dissatisfaction, energy and disloyalty. There should be a line which must be drawn between sedition and freedom to expression of speech to prevent any negative repercussions. The law of Sedition was introduced by the British so as to supress Indians from speaking against them in the freedom fight, such law in current times have been misused by the ruling party against those who speak against the government and in a democracy opinion of the people matter and the law must be amended in a way that it cannot be misused by anyone and be in accordance with the current system.
CONCLUSION:
Since its introduction, law of sedition has been quite uncertain and non-uniform. The law although in the post-independence era was brought in to ensure national sovereignty but it has failed to fulfil its due purpose. It has been repeatedly misused by the political class to supress the voices of criticism. Although, the courts have played a pivotal role in ensuring the deliverance of fundamental rights to the citizens, there still remain concerns over the validity of this section in the IPC. Moreover, the courts have struggled in various cases in striking a balance a between the constitutional provisions and Section 124-A of the IPC. A critical examination of the overall scenario points to the fact that this is high time that the legislature and judiciary recognise the need to define boundaries between national security and fair criticism and subsequently bring about deliverance of justice.
REFERENCES:
Articles:
Sedition in India: Colonial Legacy, Misuse and Effect on Free Speech
2. India: Tracing The History of Sedition in India, Ashima Obhan
3. AN ANALYSIS OF THE MODERN OFFENCE OF SEDITION, NVidia Saxena and Siddhartha Srivastava
4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE LAW OF SEDITION IN INDIA, R. K. Misra
Websites:
1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949872?readnow=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
3. http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/37E592F0-BE2A-475F-AF99-2F6909F3CF11.pdf