Tag: constitutionlaws

INTRODUCTION

On August 2, the Parliament passed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019. On August 8th, 2019, it was quickly approved by the President. The Amendment Act, which was passed by Parliament, resulted in a number of revisions to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. The primary modification was done to Section 35 of the Act. The most recent change to the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 (UAPA 2019), allows the Union Government to label individuals as terrorists without following due process. The UAPA is also referred to as the Anti-Terrorism Act. This amendment has received much criticism as it allowed the government to classify individuals as terrorists if the government suspects they are engaging in terrorism. When a person is so classified, their name is included in Schedule 4 of the statute. Prior to the amendment, only organizations could be classified as terrorist organizations. The current challenge to the 2019 Amendment Act is merely in its earliest stages, with the State yet to file its response. Nonetheless, due to the nature of the challenge and previous complaints of the legislation as excessive, the situation is poised to provide an excellent testing ground for the scope of the government’s discretion in anti-terror legislation.

The amendment resulted in sections 35 and 36 of Chapter VI of the Act being broadened – the term “terrorist” to include individuals. It also empowers the DG of the NIA to seize property derived from terrorist funds under Section 25 and personnel with the level of inspector and higher to investigate crimes under Section 43 of the UAPA. The Central Government also establishes a Review Committee to denote the individual who has been designated as a terrorist, effectively eliminating any institutional avenue for judicial review.

CHALLENGES TO THE AMENDMENT

The principal objections to the Amendment are based on Section 35, which, in addition to categorizing organizations as terrorist organizations, expanded the power to encompass the designation of individuals as terrorists. Two petitions were filed before the supreme court regarding the constitutional validity – Sajal Awasthi filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court against the UAPA, 2019, claiming that it is unconstitutional since it infringes basic fundamental rights. Another petition, filed by the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), argued that the new Section 35 enables the Centre to classify an individual as a terrorist and include his individuality in Schedule 4 of the Act, whereas previously only organizations could be designated as terrorist organizations. The fundamental point of disagreement for both petitioners is that an individual can be classified as a terrorist with no judicial assessment and even before a lawsuit is filed, which is unreasonable. They claimed that the Amendment Act violated the rights to life (Article 21), free speech (Article 19), and equality guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 14). Opposers of the Amendment contend that it provides the executive arbitrary authority and infringes an individual’s right to due process, right to protest, and right to dignity. The Court marked these petitions, and on September 7, 2019, it sent notice to the Government. Sections 35 and 36, according to the petitioners, should be repealed and declared illegal. Based on the Awasthi lawsuit, the provision’s absence of defined standards for labelling someone a terrorist violates their right to equality. As a result, the clause is manifestly arbitrary. A law is clearly capricious and inconsistent with equality right if it is established without a proper guiding foundation and is exorbitant or disproportionate in character, according to the concept of obvious arbitrariness. Awasthi further claims that the amendment infringes the right to dissent, which is a component of free speech. They highlighted the judgements in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) and Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey (1950) to emphasize the importance of free expression and the accompanying freedom to disagree (2008). The grounds for the petition are as follows:

1. There is an absence of substantive and procedural fair trials – There is an absence of substantive and procedural fair trials. section 35 authorizes the government to label any individual as a terrorist under the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA. Without an elaborate process, the administration can proclaim and inform based on mere belief. There is no requirement for a fair hearing. The basis for declaring someone a terrorist is imprecise and ambiguous: would it be the filing of an FIR or a trial court conviction? While S. 36 allows an individual who has been designated as a terrorist to file an appeal with the government, its implementation is problematic. A person is not notified of the reason for his or her arrest. At the level of appeal, there isn’t any provision for an oral hearing. In the case of Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), it was reaffirmed that only through due process of law could the right to life and personal liberty be restricted. Sections 35 and 36 violate the due process requirement.
2. The law is irrational and infringes on equality – The challenging part lacks safeguards against the considerable potential for discretionary power. While the method for designating an organization as a terrorist is robust, it is inappropriate for an individual. The handling of a person is disproportionate and inappropriate because there is no clear aim underlying the differentiation between an organization and an individual. This does not meet Article 14’s ‘reasonable classification’ criteria. Furthermore, the denial of a fair hearing violated the natural justice concept of audi alteram partem, or the fair hearing rule. Invoking the case of Union of India v Tulsiram Patel (1985), the petition claims that a violation of natural justice leads to arbitrariness and thus violates Article 14. The petition also mentioned People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2004). The Court concluded that violating human rights in the fight against terrorism is counterproductive.
3. Indirect Infringement to Free Speech – According to Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey, dissent is an essential component of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) (2008). Under the pretence of banning terrorism, the challenged Sections are intended to restrict critical expression against the government. The change contradicts the international conventions approved by India. The Amendment specifically violates legal norms under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Counterterrorism.

CONCLUSION

The Amendment was already widely criticized since it gives the Union Government vast and indefinite authority to arrest anyone without following necessary procedures. The UAPA amendment empowers the government to violate a person’s basic rights to free speech, integrity, dissent, and reputation. The burden of evidence to counter the charges is on the individual, not just the state, and anyone can be branded a terrorist at the discretion of the government. Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution are violated by the 2019 Act changes, and the legislature has no jurisdiction to take away a citizen’s fundamental rights because they are a fundamental component of the Constitution. Certain provisions of the recently amended UAPA, 2019, are irreconcilable with the legal structure of the country. To fight terrorism, this Act empowers the government to impose unofficial limitations on the right to free expression; yet these measures have unintended implications that limit the circulation of ideas within society. As a consequence of this law, countless journalists are placed on trial and required to withdraw their opinions on certain sensitive topics merely because the government considers that doing so will incite hatred, without giving any proof to support this claim. The most serious consequences can be witnessed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. After Article 370 was repealed, the government gained control over the state. Many residents, especially reporters, are being tried under UAPA and are being denied the right to free expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Amendment contradicts the mandate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The preceding arguments have demonstrated how the amendment jeopardizes its citizens’ fundamental rights and threatens the very existence of opposition. When such heinous legislation breaches and deprives citizens’ rights, it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility to intervene and re-establish faith in democracy. This Amendment shows the goal of laws enacted by colonial rule to stifle various liberation movements under the guise of maintaining public order.

CITATIONS

1. K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
2. Union Of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others, 1985 AIR 1416 (India).

---

This article is written by Shraddha Vemula, a second-year B.B.A. LLB Student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

INTRODUCTION

India is a democratic country; therefore, the people of the country are its superheroes. The government, constitution, laws, and others, as such, all exist for the people and by the people. So, laws are meant for the citizens of the country, and they can be shaped by the people. In India, the law-making process is carried on by the central or union government for the whole country and by each state government for each state, as well as the local municipal councils and districts for their respective districts. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are India’s two legislative houses, and for a law to be passed in India, it must pass through the two legislative houses of the parliament of India. A bill is used to present legislative proposals to either house of the Indian Parliament.

 A bill is a draught legislative proposal that, after being approved by both chambers of parliament and the president, becomes law. A law is not passed or enforced as such. It is first crafted as a bill by the legislative houses, and before it is enforced or passed, the bill must be passed or approved by both houses. A bill is a drafted legislative proposal that, after being approved by both chambers of parliament and the president, becomes law. After the bill has been drafted, it must be publicized in the newspapers and the people must be given a democratic opportunity to comment. The legislature must adopt a bill before it becomes a law, and in most situations, the administration must also approve it. A bill is referred to as an act of the legislature or a statute once it has been made into law. The President can assent, withhold assent, and send the measure back for consideration, and he can also sit on it if both houses of Congress concur. The bill then passes both houses if they agree. The president will then sign this agreed-upon bill into law, making it applicable throughout the country. 

DEMOCRATIZATION IN LAW-MAKING       

As a democratic country, there must be public participation in the law-making process. As a democratic country, there must not only be the right to franchise and elect their representative but the people must also participate in the law-making process. In the democratization of law-making, the central government must publish the details of the legislation. The drafted bill must contain the provisions, its impact on the environment and the lives of the affected people. The public must be given 30 days to comment. Comments are submitted to the parliamentary standing committee to amend the necessary provisions in the bill to make the bill people-friendly.

THE PRE-LEGISLATIVE CONSULTATION POLICY

The Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy was developed by the Central Government in 2014. This policy gives individuals like you and me the opportunity to participate in the drafting of laws before it is to made or enforced as law in our country. According to this policy, the government must give a chance to all the people of the country to participate in the process of law-making so that the law made by the government is for all. Since the law made by the government will be for the good of the public and since the people themselves are involved in the law-making process, the law made will not be violated on a large scale and will be followed by the majority of the population. This ideology of law-making is successfully achieved by the government publishing the proposals made by the legislative assembly to the general public to receive their feedback on any draught or proposed legislation for at least 30 days. Public consultation is the procedure where you inform the government of your opinions on how a policy might affect you.

These requests for comment must include the proposed legislation or at the very least information about it, such as its financial ramifications and effects on the environment, citizens’ lives and livelihoods, and their fundamental rights. The main objective of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy is to assist citizens in legitimate and expanding demands for more transparency from the government. This policy is considered to be the most effective tool for citizens to participate in the process of law-making in our country in a democratic manner.

It is important that laws be drafted in a democratic form. In the first place, we, the people, elect our representatives and they make the laws for us in parliament, and we the people play a crucial role in shaping those laws made by them. They also ensure that the final policy or law drafted is relevant and serves the people for whom it was drafted.

It is essential that we have policy tools like PLP in a nation like ours with such a wide range of interests so that all groups feel as though their opinions are given the proper respect and recognition. To make sure that the government receives useful suggestions from those whose lives will be impacted by its laws, consultation with the pertinent stakeholders is essential.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill of 2017, which forbids the practice of triple talaq, is a clear illustration of this. The appropriate organizations weren’t appropriately contacted before the measure was enacted. One of the many errors in the bill is that triple talaq was stated as a cognizable offence. Another alarming development is that the police were given the right to hold Muslim men without any judicial review or inquiry into whether the subject actually warranted detention. In essence, this meant that the rules were still in effect even though neither spouse had filed a formal complaint. Additionally, the government did not draught the measure after engaging with concerned representatives of civil society, such as advocates for women’s rights, defence attorneys, or even Muslims. In this case, the bill or the law passed by the legislative assembly would have been drafted more effectively if a pre-legislative consultative procedure had been used

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, which drastically curtailed the rights of transgender people as recognized in the seminal case of NALSA v. Union of India¹, serves as another illustration of how the government neglected to engage with concerned community members. The transgender community essentially rejected the Bill outright because they felt it was not in their best interests because it was not adequately discussed and consulted with during the bill’s development. In short, the Bill incorrectly lumps intersex people and transgender people together, seeing them as interchangeable, and it neglected to adequately address significant issues at the time, like the repeal of Section 377 of the IPC. It also did not respond to the Trans community’s widespread call for inclusive marital and inheritance rules. Another grievous omission was the failure to gender-neutralize offences in order to properly exclude members of the transgender community. In this instance, much more effective legislation could have been drafted if a pre-legislative consultative procedure had been used, in which the Trans community had been properly informed and consulted before the Bill was drafted.

Kerala has set an example for Pre Legislative Consultation Policy. In Kerala, the state ensures public participation to draft its police law. The draft bill was placed on the Kerala police website inviting feedback from the public at large. When the draft bill was introduced in the house at that time there was a district-level town hall meeting. A select Committee was set up and amendments were made which included people-friendly provisions. And Kerala Police Act was passed.

CONCLUSION

There will be effective law-making only when the public also participates in the law-making process. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has emphasized that public participation in law-making is vital for the functioning of the law-making process. The policy-making and law-making process should be available in regional language also so that the people would understand the law and suggest some changes in the law.  Public comment is essential and necessary changes should also be made by the legislature. Our country should develop a social audit legislation wherein there must be a legal obligation on policymakers to consult the public.  

---

CITATIONS

1. SC Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012

This article is written by Sree Lekshmi B J; third year law student from Sastra University, Thanjavur.

Background

The Constitution has been modified multiple times in order to keep up with societal changes. The Constitution was written to build an equitable society in which social, economic, and political justice are preserved, as well as equality of position and opportunity for all. Amendments to the Constitution are also made with the same goal and intent in mind. According to India’s legal history, anytime the Supreme Court issued a ruling on reservations, the Parliament would either reject or restrain the uncomfortable judicial declaration by amending the Constitution. One such example is the ratification of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which aimed to grant reservations to economically disadvantaged parts of society.

The Constitution Amendment Act of 2019 amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. These two clauses provide the foundation of reservation in sectors like education and government employment. The legislation enabled the state to grant a maximum of 10% reserve for “economically weaker parts” of society by inserting two additional articles into Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. As a consequence, the total number of reservations over and above the existing programme has risen to 59.50 percent.

Need for the 103rd Amendment

1. This specific amendment will deal with a problem that is prevalent in India, which is the upper caste pupils who were unable to attend public employment and further education owing to improper family financial structure.
2. Also, many of the upper caste residents live in poverty and starvation.
3. The higher caste poor will be able to receive the same level of quota as OBC thanks to this adjustment to the reservation policy.
4. The upper caste used to despise people who entered the country through reservations, but this amendment will help to end that practice.

What were the Amendments and the Additions?

1. The Amendment added clauses 15(6) and 16(6) to the corresponding provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, respectively.
2. The amendment gave the state the power to pass legislation aimed at “advancing any economically disadvantaged portion of citizens other than the classes indicated (in the preceding provisions).”
3. Article 15(6)(b) specifically mentions “admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30. Article 15(6)(a) discusses allowing the enactment of special provisions of any kind.
4. EWS reservations are required per Article 16.6 in situations involving “appointments or postings.
5. The Act specifies a 10% cap on this reserve as its maximum.

The requirement for amending Constitutional clauses

For social and economic advancement, the Constitution is modified. In the case of Keshavanada Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973), it was noted that the people would turn to extra-constitutional tactics, such as a revolution, to modify the Constitution if no provisions were created for its amendment. Politicians have characterized the federal constitution as stiff because of the way amendments are made in federations. The American Constitution’s amending process is exceedingly challenging. The federal Constitution is frequently criticized for being overly conservative and for being too difficult to change.

The Indian Constitution was therefore drafted in a way that would allow it to adjust to the shifting needs and circumstances of an expanding people in order to avoid becoming inflexible. However, the framers did not want to make the Constitution overly pliable since it would have allowed the ruling party to play to its whims and fancies. The Constitution may be changed since it is neither too strict nor too flexible. According to Willis, there would always be a risk of revolution if no provisions for the amendment were made to the United States Constitutional Law. The risk of taking action that is too quickly would always exist if the technique of the modification were too simple. Our political institutions would be at risk of being overthrown in any scenario.

Therefore, the goal behind altering the Constitution under Article 368 was to bring about societal transformation. The Constitution’s amendment process functions as a safety valve designed to maintain the document’s provisions and to allow for amendments if needed. The risk of having a non-amendable Constitution and the risk of a Constitution that is too easily amendable have therefore been balanced by the constitution-makers.

The challenge to the Constitution’s validity

The Constitution’s “Identity” is formed by certain structural concepts, which include federalism, equality, freedom, secularism, independence of the judiciary, power of judicial review, democratic form of government, republican form of government, and others. The basic structural theory established this, thus it cannot be changed without destroying the constitution’s unique character. The Supreme Court ruled in the precedent-setting case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that the Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and that even a Constitutional amendment can be invalidated if it has the result of destroying or repealing the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

A government office memo from the P.V. Narasimha Rao administration in September 1991 set aside 10% of positions for “other economically deprived categories.” In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court overturned this judgment. The court examined the legality of the quotas in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., carefully analyzing the idea of backwardness. As per, Dr. BR Ambedkar, the classes of people for whom reservations were to be introduced are those “communities who have not had thus far representation in the State.” Indra Sawhney, where it was believed that the Constitution allowed for “appropriate representation” rather than “proportionate representation,” explains one of the reasons why the quota limit was set at 50%.

The following is a list of some of the crucial decisions made in the Indra Sawhney case regarding reservations:

• It upheld the 27% OBC reservation with the condition that the “creamy layer” excluded.
• It declared that a backward class of citizens cannot be established solely and exclusively with regard to economic backward criteria and nullified the 10% quota for economically backward portions.
• It was decided that the reservations made for backlog or carried-forward vacancies were valid; should not exceed 50% of the annual appointments
• It was decided that reservations may only be issued for a service or category if the State was satisfied that the representation of people from the underprivileged class was insufficient.

Does the action contradict the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine?

Youth for Equality, a non-profit organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation with the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the legislation’s decision to grant a ten percent reservation to students from economically disadvantaged groups in public and private educational institutions violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution and supersedes earlier rulings.

The question that emerges initially is that can the basic rights be amended? This can be explained by the 1951 case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, in which the constitutionality of the First Amendment Act of 1951, which included Articles 31 A and 31 B, was contested. The argument against the Amendment was that it violates the rights granted by Part III, which is prohibited under Article 13(2) and is therefore invalid. It was argued that because Parliament is included in the definition of “state” in Article 12, the term “Law” in Article 13(2) must also refer to a constitutional amendment.

The next issue is whether the Constitution’s fundamental principles are violated by the Act. The solution may be found by first defining the idea of the fundamental structure before concluding. Although the courts have made various rulings in this regard, they have not defined the idea of the Constitution’s fundamental structure. The idea was debated in the well-known Kesavananda Bharati Case, in which the petitioners actually contested the legitimacy and scope of Article 368, arguing that it lacked any restrictions and so ran counter to the fundamental principles of the constitution.

Critical evaluation

The Indian Constitution establishes an “equality code” to address historical injustices and the obvious inequality in higher education and state jobs. Everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law and equality before the law under Article 14.

In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, the Supreme Court declared that the reservation should not exceed 50% and overturned the 68% restriction imposed by Article 15 (4) on admissions to medical and engineering institutes in the (then) State of Mysore. According to the rationale behind the “50% ceiling” for reservations in the M.R. Balaji case, the exception cannot supersede the rule. There is nothing to prevent the State from exceeding the “50% ceiling” for reservations if Article 16(4) does not constitute an exception to Article 16(1), provided that the total population of the underrepresented classes is not itself less than 50%. In India, nevertheless, this is not the case.

However, the Supreme Court determined in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas that Article 16(1), which is a component of the equality theory, allows for the reasonable classification of all people who are in a comparable situation with regard to a statute identical to Article 14[11]. In other words, even without Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, Article 16(1) itself enables reserves and preferential treatment.

In other words, even without Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, Article 16(1) itself enables reserves and preferential treatment. Article 16(4) only seeks to make explicit what is already implicit in Article 16 and does not seek to be an exception to Article 16(1). (1). The alternative argument, on the other hand, contends that Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which allow for racial and ethnic minorities in public employment and education, are “exceptions” to Articles 15(1) and 16(1)’s provisions for equality and non-discrimination, and that therefore, exceeding the “50 per ceiling” constitutes reverse discrimination. Indra Sawhney’s decision by the Supreme Court, in essence, constitutes a compromise between M.R. N.M. and Balaji Thomas. It established a compromise between nominal equality and substantive equality by reinstating the “50% ceiling” norm.

Conclusion

The Constitution has been amended and introduced in order to stay up with societal advancements. In order to assure economic upliftment for the populace and to offer benefits to those who experience unemployment and are unable to pay for their school costs, the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 has also been proposed and passed. The other fundamental rights and other Constitutional provisions are not in any manner at odds with the Act. It may be said that by revising the Act, the government has given all people equal rights and benefits in terms of economic advancement and has in reality acceded to the Constitution of India’s requirements.

---

Citations

1. The Gazette of India.
2. Indian Constitution, art. 15.
3. Indian Constitution, art. 16.
4. Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr , 1973.
5. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives. (2015, November 4). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
6. Indian Constitution, art. 368.
7. Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc., 1992.
8. Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India And State Of Bihar, 1951.
9. M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore, 1962.
10. State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas & Ors, 1975.

This article is written by Puneet Kaur, a second-year student.

INTRODUCTION

Association refers to a group of people or entities that come together to form a group to achieve a particular objective over a period of time. A person cannot evolve if he is isolated from the rest of his community. To survive in society, people are required to have the company of others with whom they can communicate. Hence, people are compelled by the need to co-exist and create connections with one another. Participation in various organizations and groups assists a person in staying in touch and being educated about the current happenings in society. In a constitutional democracy, the liberty to assemble and the freedom of association are central tenets of citizens’ lives. These liberties empower citizens to organize for the pursuit of communal goals and to connect with one another. It also gives them the right to protest, as a result, they are among the rights and liberties that are limited by any State.

Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution empowers all citizens to form organizations, unions, or cooperative societies. However, under Article 19, clause (4), the state can implement restrictions on this freedom in the interests of public order, morals, and the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Until recently, most Western nations not only prohibited union activity but it was also considered as being an anti-social and anti-state issue in many countries. After World War I, the State took cognizance of the matter and was compelled to take significant efforts to guarantee the working class’s fundamental rights through labour and industrial legislation. Asserting upon such rights as fundamental and upholding them within a Constitution was a much more daring step. Recognizing the contemporary trends, India’s Constitution has declared the right of workers to organize unions a fundamental right.

SIGNIFICANCE OF FREEDOM TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS           

These organizations ensure that everyone has the right to organize and join unions, whether informally or formally. It is the enabling right, at the foundation of rule of law and democracy, to allow non-state entities to participate effectively in economic and social policy. It guarantees that both employees and employers are represented, which is vital for the smooth running of both labour markets and a country’s overall governance. These organizations encourage people to express their opinions and help them get to know others. They also aid their members in developing an identity and achieving a reputable standing by improving an individual’s understanding and instilling vital ideals in them.

In the case of State of Madras v. V.G. Rao, the Supreme Court held that the freedom to form groups or unions has a broad and diversified scope for its practice, and its restriction is loaded with varied consequences arising from religious, political, and economic sectors. The apex court also stated that the government has the authority to impose restrictions on such rights without allowing their factual and legal aspects to be duly tested during a judicial inquiry is a robust element that must be considered while assessing the legality of the constraints put on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(c).

The legitimacy of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, was questioned in the case of Damayanti v. Union of India as a violation of Article 19(1)(c). The petitioner belonged to an organization whose composition was altered due to the Act by bringing in new members. The members who willingly founded the association now were obligated to operate in the association with several other members over whose admittance they had no influence. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act infringed the rights of the people to join an organization, as granted by Art 19(1)(c). The right to create an association, necessarily entails that the person founding the group likewise has the right to continue to be affiliated with only those who willingly admit themselves to the association, the court stated.

Any legislation that introduces members into a voluntary association without allowing the members to keep them out, or any law that strips away the affiliation of those who have willingly joined it, shall be a law that violates the freedom to create an association. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act does more than only control the management of the original society’s business; it also changes the constitution of the association itself. As a result, the Act breaches the freedom of the society’s founding members to form an organization, as granted by Article 19(1)(c). As a result, the Act breaches the freedom of the society’s founding members to form an organization, as granted by Article 19(1)(c).

Right to form Associations for Defence Personnel:

In the case of Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair v. Union of India, a crucial question emerged as to whether civilian personnel classified as non-combatants, such as chefs, barbers, mechanics, tailors, etc, attached to Defence Establishments had the right to form or join organizations or unions. The appellants were affiliates of city employee unions in several facilities of the Defence Establishment, and their unions were ruled illegal by the Commandment. They claimed that the action infringed their basic freedom to form or join associations or unions under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. They maintained that, while members of the unions were attached to the Defence Establishments, their employment conditions were governed by the Civil Service Rules, and so they could not be referred to as “members of the Armed Forces” under Art 33 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ arguments and held that civilian workers of Defence Establishments fit the character of members of the Armed Forces under Article 33 and, as such, were not allowed to organize trade unions. It is their responsibility to follow or accompany Armed Personnel on active duty, in camp, or on the march. Even though they are non-combatants and are subject to Civil Service Rules in some areas, they are essential to the Armed Forces. As a result, the Central Government has the authority under the Army Act to impose laws restricting or curbing their basic right under Article 19(1)(c).

Right to form Associations while in Government or Civil Services:

In the case of G.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Josef, Rule 4-B of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, states that a government servant must not join or continue to be a member of the Association of State Employees as soon as the recognition granted to such association is withdrawn, or if the association is formed, no recognition is granted within six months. The Supreme Court held that making the requirement of recognition of the association a right would be futile and illusory and that imposing such a requirement on the right of the association will have no bearing on the public order of the State.

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

As with any other fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19, the right to associate is not absolute and may be limited to the public good. Article 19(4) specifically authorizes the State to adopt legislation that limits, abridges, or eliminates any or all the rights granted by Article 19(1)(c). Clause (4) allows the state to impose reasonable limits on the freedom to organize groups in the best interest of India’s sovereignty and integrity, civil security, and morality.

Grounds for the restrictions imposed-

• Threat to Sovereignty and/or Integrity of India; To protect the country’s sovereignty, the right to form associations can be curtailed if it jeopardizes the country’s unity.
• Threat to Public Order; To ensure the safety, public peace, order, and tranquillity of the country, the right to establish an association can be curtailed.
• Threat to Morality; This freedom may be limited when an association’s or individual’s conduct includes indecency, obscenity, or immorality.

Following are the elements of the restrictions that can be imposed-

• Only a legislative authority can impose such restrictions.
• Reasonable restrictions are required to be included.
• A judicial authority like a Judge has the authority to check for the legality of any or all the restrictions imposed upon by any such acts of the legislative authority on the following grounds; 1) Whether the restrictions are reasonably imposed or afforded by the people. 2) Whether the restrictions are being imposed for the purposes mentioned in the article.

In the case of P. Balakotaih v. Union of India, the appellant’s services were discontinued under Railway Service Rules because he was a communist party member and a trade unionist. The appellant asserted that his dismissal from service amounted to a deprivation of his freedom to organize an association. The appellant had a basic right to form or join an association or union, however, he had no fundamental right to continue working for the government. As a result, it was determined that the order discontinuing his employment did not violate Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution since it did not preclude him from being a member of the Communist Party as a trade unionist.

In the case of Hazi Mohammad Ibrahim v. District School Board Malda, it was seen that a limitation requiring a teacher to obtain prior authorization to engage in political activity is a reasonable restriction. It attempted to prohibit teachers from being active in political institutions since it may influence their opinions on specific themes which may impede pupils’ overall education.

In the case of S. Ramkrishnaiah v. President District Board, Nellore, a government order compelling municipal teachers not to join unions other than those officially sanctioned was held to be administrative censorship on the freedom to form or join association and union and was hence unlawful.

CONCLUSION

We can hence infer that such associations, clubs, groups, and other organizations do play an important part in an individual’s life. They also play a significant role in shaping his perception and convincing him to have a larger perspective on everything that happens in society. The Constitution ensures that no citizen dwelling within the nation’s territorial boundaries is denied the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c). At the same time, citizens must guarantee that peace, discipline, and order remain in society throughout the founding of an organization and during their membership term. It is also vital that the establishment, participation, and even survival of such organizations do not operate as a roadblock or an impediment to the country’s advancement and development. If people participating in them have a bad or comparable goal or purpose, the democratic system would become imbalanced. It is in such cases that the state will step in to protect the welfare and well-being of the country’s population. These groups should help everyone be united, and enjoy this constitutionally granted liberty to its advantage for achieving the greater good.

REFERENCES

1. State of Madras v. V.G. Rao, 1952 AIR 196
2. Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India, 1971 AIR 966
3. Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair v. Union of India, 1976 AIR 1179
4. G.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Josef, 1963 AIR 812
5. P. Balakotaih v. Union of India, 1958 AIR 232
6. Hazi Mohammad Ibrahim v. District School Board Malda, AIR 1958 Cal 401
7. S. Ramkrishnaiah v. President District Board, Nellore, AIR 1952 Mad 253

This article is written by Namay Khanna, a 3^rd year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Introduction

When the British left a violently divided India in 1947, Jammu and Kashmir had the option of joining either India or Pakistan or remaining independent. Even though there was already strong opposition to him in the form of the Quit Kashmir campaign, the then-Hindu king Maharaja Hari Singh preferred to maintain his position of power (the Muslim populace was against Hari Singh and wanted him to secede to Pakistan). Armed tribesmen from Pakistan invaded J&K as revenge and took control of strategic areas, which are now known as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).

In a desperate attempt to secure military support, the Hindu Maharaja agreed to India’s accession on the condition that the decision would be made with the support of the locals (Ganguly-1994). India brought the matter before the UN Security Council, which approved a cease-fire deal between India and Pakistan known as the “Karachi Agreement,” subject to a referendum once troops had been evacuated from both sides. The notion of a referendum was abandoned because Pakistani troops refused to leave one-third of Kashmir and have remained there ever since, referring to the area as “Azad Kashmir.”

With the accession, India gained control over the defense, foreign policy, and communication of Kashmir. Although Kashmir did legally become a part of India, the territorial disputes between Pakistan and India tore Kashmiri citizens apart.

Research Review

Jammu and Kashmir have been wracked by unrest since August 2019 as a result of Article 370’s repeal. The history of the creation of Article 370 is examined in the article “The Revocation of Kashmir’s Autonomy: High-Risk Hindutva Politics at Play” by Medha Menon (2021). It also examines how its repeal drives the establishment of Hindu Nationalist Politics, which silences the voice of the minority. It also focuses on how women’s rights are evolving in the valley amidst conflict. Sumit Ganguly’s article “India and the Crisis in Kashmir” from 1994 goes into detail about how political mobilization and institutional failure led to the emergence of the insurgency in J&K. The study also focuses on suppressing dissent that manifests as violence as a result of overly harsh treatment of Kashmiris.

The Yale School paper “The Myth of Normalcy: Impunity and the Judiciary in Kashmir” provides an outstanding analysis of Kashmir’s judicial system. The argumentative essay provides strong evidence of the violations of human rights that occurred after repressive laws like the Public Safety Act (PSA) and the Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA). It also makes observations on how the current legal framework gives military troops complete impunity for criminal activity.

The article from The Wire titled “J&K Internet Shutdown Based on Dubious Legal Framework” describes how communication blockades in the valley under the guise of national security have ended up becoming a type of collective punishment that the government abuses. It draws attention to the unrest that this broad restriction has produced in civil societies.

Discussions And Analysis

Granting Special Autonomy, Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir are given a distinct status within India and unique capabilities under Article 370. According to the Article, the state must have its Constitution, flag, election commission, and president (or “Sadr-i-Riasat”) in place of a governor. Additionally, the Ranbir Penal Code, the state’s criminal code, and discriminatory property rights for women are both present (Medha-2019). By requiring state governments to be consulted on issues that are on the Union and Concurrent lists, it limits the Parliament’s ability to enact laws.

Additionally, this Article supported the execution of only two articles of the Indian Constitution in the state, with the proviso that the President may, at any time, declare Article 370 to be inoperative through a public notification. Hindus and Muslims living in the valley had grown suspicious of one another as a result of the subjugation and compelled integration of a state with a Muslim majority into India. Furthermore, because of the unique privileges given to its residents with regard to property, work, and residency, the state has developed in a setting of exclusivity and separation. Although these laws may have given the state more autonomy, the deployment of armed soldiers in the valley has created an atmosphere of unease and suspicion.

All of these clauses were no longer in effect on August 5th, 2019, when Article 370 was repealed and Jammu and Kashmir were fully incorporated into India. However, because Article 370 was adopted from the beginning as a “temporary measure,” the abrogation was not unlawful (Sharma-2019). However, over the years, poor administrative and bureaucratic decisions have made it difficult to revoke it. The abrogation has made mainstream political parties in J&K, like the PDP, who sought support for the demand for self-rule, hostile. Placing key leaders under house arrest, as is permitted by the Public Safety Act, has further muted dissenting voices (PSA). J&K’s political and social trajectory still veers along uncertain, dangerously stated paths.

Internet shutdown

After Article 370 was repealed, a wave of protests and stone-throwing broke out in the valley, forcing the authorities to shut down all communication channels. People in the valley are in a dangerous state of anxiety because they are worried that Pakistan may try to influence this contentious subject in response to India’s cautious and conciliatory stance. In August 2019, India was utilizing the cutting-edge spaces made possible by internet services, while Kashmir was forced to experience a blackout. The BJP government defended the action on the grounds of security, violence prevention, and halting the spread of untrue rumors. To monitor money laundering and the funding of terrorism, the government eventually gained access to trace all types of digital transactions.

Since that time, the state’s citizens have been cut off from the outside world and living in darkness. When there were lockdowns and no remaining means of communication, trade, and business suffered. Travel restrictions brought the tourism industry to a standstill, leaving many employed in ancillary businesses without a job or another source of income. The residents of Kashmir struggled with meager financial aid and low employment rates. Due to the government’s lack of concern for the regular people, they struggled to make ends meet.

The closure of educational institutions and the suspension of internet access have effectively closed off all avenues of knowledge for pupils, which is a clear violation of their constitutional right to an education. The options that would have normally provided them with fresh horizons have been taken away from them.  When Article 370 was repealed, the government promised to open prestigious institutions of higher learning, but these assurances have not yet materialized. Kashmiri kids have been forced into a pit of unfair possibilities by the broken educational system, infringing on their right to equality.

Because of the communication blockage, Kashmiris are completely cut off from the outside world. For the past year, Kashmiris have been unable to reach their family, and they continue to worry about their welfare. The situation has caused more unease and worry, which frequently manifests itself in violent fights with the troops. Public gathering bans and widespread arrests of those the draconian PSA refers to as “miscreants” have been used to quell these unrests. After the abrogation, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was put into effect in J&K, which resulted in the additional arrest of 255 non-violent activists (Duschinski, Bhan-2017).

Although J&K has struggled to speak out thanks to the recently provided right to expression under the Indian Constitution, it has been muted by the imposing of the longest internet blackout. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Faheema Shirin RK v the State of Kerala saying that the right to the internet is a basic right, Kashmiris continue to struggle with these communication difficulties.

Since Article 370 has been repealed, Kashmiris are now entitled to several fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, yet these rights are often abused. The question of whether Kashmiris would be true legal Indian citizens in the truest sense or merely stay a part of India through legislation and coercion is raised in their thoughts by this circumstance. The central government went too far and ignored the SC ruling in Bhasin v. Union of India regarding the proportionality of internet shutdowns. The judgment is compared to weak wi-fi signals, which are present but have no influence, in the context of zero implementation. Although Kashmiri nationals may have been included under the scope of the Indian constitution as a result of the removal of Article 370, it is still unclear whether this action has given them rights.

The future of women’s rights: freedom or limitations

Every Kashmiri citizen, especially Kashmiri women, has been harmed by the repeal of Article 370, which has also oppressed the lower classes. Gross human rights breaches, which are also reflected in discriminatory laws, have already been caused by the terrorism and military occupation of the region. One of the fundamental elements used to justify the abrogation by the Central government was the uniformity and equality of women’s rights. They saw it as a sign of freedom and self-determination for Kashmiri women. According to the centre, the revocation will provide women more authority by allowing them to transfer and purchase property even if they are married to someone who does not reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, the identical may also be inherited. The same can now be passed down to their offspring, giving them the same property rights as men, which was previously not feasible. This discriminatory clause in Article 35A is no longer valid as a result of the repeal of Article 370.

Activists, female sarpanches, and Kashmiri Pandit women who were married in other areas of the nation applauded the abrogation because they had lucrative stakes in the valley. The situation of Kashmiri women living in the valley, however, has not improved, and they continue to endure terrible repression. The political culture and the government have traditionally worked to limit women’s active engagement in society. Military forces posted in the valley have further suppressed women, and they frequently experience physical and sexual abuse. Despite having the right to express themselves freely, women nonetheless have to constantly worry about arbitrary government actions and being treated like second-class citizens.

Draconian military measures like AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Protection Act) have silenced women’s voices and made them vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of violence. The AFSPA gives the military the authority to maintain public order in “disturbed areas,” detain someone without a warrant and employ reasonable force. Military troops commit horrible crimes with complete impunity under the guise of these deeds. According to these women, the entire gruesome process was “widowed by conflict, isolated by arrest” (Zahra, Muzamil-2020).

The J&K-based Valmikis were permitted to enter the valley under the condition that they exclusively act as scavengers (Sareen-2020). The Valmiki community is forced to scavenge regardless of their level of education in this egregious violation of their human rights. Similar to this, Gorkhas living in J&K were also refused citizenship while being harassed with financial demands by administrative authorities in the absence of the Right to Information Act and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who might have stopped these wrongdoings.

Increased female and working-class representation in public spaces is being offered as a carrot by the centre, which also promises a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But keeping women out of the decision-making process is a colonial, top-down strategy that has no advantages. By imposing judgments on them and pretending to know what is best for their welfare, the Hindu hard-line BJP administration has established itself as a patriarch. A campaign for women’s rights seems to be taking different forms in reality than it did in theory.

Change in the Government’s Authority and the Demographic Paradigm

The only Muslim-majority state in India was granted sovereignty and special status under Article 370. Under Article 370, the state defined and prescribed its legal and policy framework. Only permanent residents of Kashmir were permitted to own property in the valley, which also implemented a stringent settlement policy. All of these clauses are no longer in effect as a result of the repeal of Article 370, and J&K is now subject to directives from the federal government.

The opening up of the valley and the anticipated influx of Hindu people instilled in the minds of the Muslim majority population, the dread of being oppressed and enslaved. The residents of the region worry that historical religious violence’s scars may reappear. The general public views the revocation as a complete military takeover of Kashmir through the use of the legal system. Kashmiris view it as contradictory to be referred to as legal citizens of India while still being treated as subjects of governance without their permission.

The locals worry that the settlement of “outsiders” will cause the outcomes of any referendum or plebiscite to change dramatically over time, should it be held. The military will operate in complete anarchy, according to human rights groups, as a result of the centre’s overreaching support (Hussain, 2009). The abrogation, according to pro-Pakistan Kashmiri groups, is a plan by the Indian government to further tighten the noose around Kashmir and make disruptive violence the new standard in the valley.

Conclusion

Jammu & Kashmir’s fame has usually been contested on each both internal and outdoor. Three countries—India, Pakistan, and China—make claims to their land, which results in a steady movement of unrest and border conflicts. India’s valley is ripped aside with the aid of using warfare for dominance among the nation and federal administrations. The valley is presently experiencing unrest and anxiety due to these kinds of reasons. The nation has been reducing off from the outdoor global and without getting admission to the net for greater than a year.

Although the closely armed army has efficiently maintained peace and order, they have got additionally made Kashmiris sense remoted and not so good as Indian nationals. Jammu and Kashmir are nevertheless ready to be free of the verbal exchange blackout and to lose their fame as “disturbed areas.” The majority of Muslims in J&K are keen to study the outcomes of their minority fame.

This article is written by Kanika Arora, from Delhi Metropolitan Education (Affiliated to GGSIPU).

INTRODUCTION

Recently in May 2022, the Supreme Court decided to put a stay on the proceedings of sedition until the center reviews the age-old sedition law which includes treason. Treason is considered to be one of the gravest crimes ever committed. According to the Black’s law dictionary, “Treason is an offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.”

In general, the term treason can be defined as an act done against the government to overthrow it. For instance, when a militant or a diplomat of a nation carries information about his own nation to the enemy country, the act can be called Treason. The person who commits the act is known as a traitor. Treason is considered to be one of the gravest crimes and the UN also agrees with that. India covers the punishment for the offence ‘Treason’ under section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. Though the terms sedition and treason are a bit different from each other, treason is included.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREASON & SEDITION

The term Sedition is the offence performed against the status quo. It is considered to be a challenge against the government or an establishment. The act threatens the government or individuals in power and treason is an act that threatens the whole nation. Treason can be said a violation of one’s allegiance to one’s sovereign. However, the difference between the meanings of treason and sedition has blurred and now sedition also includes an act of terrorism and violation of public safety. The act of treason also comes under sedition laws.

TREASON LAW IN INDIA

Treason is codified under section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the section, Sedition is defined 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.”

The sedition law was firstly included by Lord McCaulay in the Indian Penal Code during the British era to stop the protests and revolts against the governance of the Crown and to punish the people or the officers betraying the government or the nation. The leaders like Gandhiji, Maulana Azad, Mohammed Ali and Shaukat, etc., were penalized for revolting against the British government to gain freedom for India.

One of the most notable trials was Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak¹. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested for writing articles in Kesari, a Marathi newspaper. He mentioned the bombings by the British officials and the unbearable violence caused by them. He further stated that this is the main reason behind the demand for Swaraj. Despite his logical and valid arguments, he was convicted and was sentenced a 6-year imprisonment and was fined Rs. 1000.

After the independence, the Constituent Assembly debated a lot regarding the inclusion of sedition. Sedition is an obstruction to the freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, many of the members have vehemently disagreed about it. During Indira Gandhi’s governance, sedition had become a cognizable offence in 1973 and it was decided that the police can arrest without a warrant in this offence.

It was stated by Supreme Court in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras², “Criticizing the government that arouses disaffection or bad feelings toward it, is not to be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and the press, unless it is such that it undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the state.” Justice Patanjali Shastri justified the liberal interpretation of the legislation by pointing out that the Constituent Assembly had left the word “sedition” out of the Constitution.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE TREASON LAW CURRENTLY

As aforementioned along with the cases cited above, the treason law i.e., Section 124A has been included by the British to suppress the protests against them. There have been many instances where section 124 A was used as a defense mechanism by the ruling government in India against the people who have spoken against them. The section is being used by the government to intimidate the journalists, activists, etc., to speak out their opinions.

Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh³ was the initial case to address the constitutionality of Section 124A. The Allahabad High Court ruled that Section 124A of the IPC was extra vires in nature and infringed upon Article 19(1)(a). In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar⁴ (1962), the constitutionality of Section 124-A was further contested before a Supreme Court Constitution Bench, with the main contention being that it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Allahabad High Court’s verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court, which stated that no crime of sedition is proved under Section 124-A until the statements, whether spoken or written, have the power to alter or disturb public order by the use of violence. Unless the remarks are likely to incite violence, there is no offense.

In the recent National Crime Records Bureau (NRCB), the number of sedition cases from 2015 to 2020 is 356 and the number of people arrested under sedition are 548. Out of the registered cases, only 6 were convicted. The data regarding the sedition cases filed reports were collected and presented by NCRB since the formation of Narendra Modi’s government in 2014. When compared to the earlier stages of government, the cases of sedition which have been filed have reduced. It has also been observed that the ruling party has been misusing section 124A to its benefit.

The following are a few case laws:

In the case of Vinod Dua v. Union of India⁵, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against a journalist named Vinod Dua for presenting the communal riots in Delhi on his YouTube channel. It was stated in the FIR that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had used terror incidents to obtain votes and also depicted the PPE kit unavailability during COVID-19 and also regarding the shipment of ventilators and sanitizers. Mr. Vinod Dua was arrested for causing public dissatisfaction and panic among the individuals who were supposed to be on lockdown due to the increasing number of cases under sections 124A and 505 of IPC.

The Supreme Court stated that the news that Mr. Vinod Dua has put forth had odd allegations charged against him. The court stated that it was Mr. Vinod’s job as a journalist to state the facts even regarding the migrants’ issues. The Hon’ble court further stated that the citizens have the right to criticize the actions of the government and the officials as long as their criticism doesn’t disturb the law and order in the nation. Hence, the allegations against him were levied.

Further, in the case of Rajat Sharma v. Union of India⁶, Farooq Abdullah in an interview by The Wire stated “whatever they are doing at LAC in Ladakh is all because of the abrogation of Article 370, which they never acknowledged, I am hopeful that Article 370 would be reinstated in J&K with their help”. He further talked about the restoration of Article 370 with China’s support. It was also stated by him that Indians do not want to be in India anymore and they would rather be dominated by the Chinese. 

The petitioners filed a case against Farooq Abdullah stating that he had amounted to a seditious act under section 124A of IPC, 1860. It was claimed by the petitioners that Mr. Abdul Farooq had persuaded the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir to join China. The Supreme Court of India, with a three-judge bench, had imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 on petitioners for filing a PIL against the CM of J&K. The bench further stated that any opinion or statement which differs from the center cannot be called seditious.

In the most recent case Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT Delhi)⁷, also known as the Toolkit case, the climate activist Disha Ravi and another were issued non-bailable warrants for the two individuals. They were accused of supporting the pro-Khalistan organizations and stated that the toolkit was to defame India for the three farm legislations. The High court of Delhi stated that Disha had engaged in a peaceful protest and in a democratic nation, citizens can’t be imprisoned just on basis of disagreement or divergence of opinion with the policies of the government. Further, it was stated that the right to speech can be exercised by the global audience.

CHALLENGES FACED BY THE CITIZENS

From the cases mentioned above, it can be inferred that there are many circumstances in which the ruling government is using Section 124A of IPC, 1860 as a weapon against people showing dissent. During the Citizenship Amendment Act enactment, there were many protests all over India against the bill from being passed by the Parliament. Around 3,872 people all over India in 26 cases relating to anti-CAA protests from 2017 to 2021.

Even in the case of Farm Bills, a huge number of farmers have come upon the streets protesting for their rights being violated due to the new farm laws which are yet to be formed. More than 100 Farmers were arrested under Sedition, section 124 A of IPC in Haryana. The first amendment of the Constitution of India has included the Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(A). India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru has also stated that it was better to remove the sedition law as soon as possible from the Penal Code.

CONCLUSION

The Higher Courts of India have defined Sedition many times in numerous cases. With the increase in the number of cases during the subsequent years, the Supreme Court of India has decided to review and renew the colonial law. The sedition law in India is important to ensure peaceful governance in India. However, it disturbs the fundamental right to speech and expression where people are being charged for merely expressing their negative views and dissent towards the governmental policies.

India is a democratic nation and the curbing of the fundamental rights of the citizens is a violation of the Constitution itself. However, there is an exception for that too. The views of the individual or peaceful protest against the governmental policies can’t be amounted to sedition according to the Supreme Court. There is a dire need for the nation to stop the authorities in power to take advantage of section 124-A of IPC, 1860.

---

REFERENCES

¹ Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1917) 19 BOMLR 211.

² Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

³ Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 All 101.

⁴ Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955.

⁵ Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021.

⁶ Rajat Sharma v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 162.

⁷ Disha A. Ravi v. State (NCT Delhi), W.P. (C) 2297/2021.

This article is written by K. Mihira Chakravarthy, 1^st year, B.A. L.L.B. student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU).