Tag: #sedition

SEDITION LAW

Posted on

INTRODUCTION

Sedition law got its existence during the era of 1590 in England. It became a part of Indian statute by the arrival of British rule and got added to Indian penal code, 1870 as section 124A. But the visage of the law got redefined once when the case of sedition was charged on Bal Gangadhar Tilak, where the judge presiding over the trial widened the scope of law, equating disaffection to dis-loyalty. Again in 1922, Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi was charged with sedition for showing disaffection towards British raj by instigating people against their rule via non- violent method.

Later, when India attained its freedom during 1947, there was wide discussion taking place on right to freedom; the use of sedition was debated. Personalities like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Rajagopal Achari had supported the idea of sedition. But on the other hand individuals like KM munshi and Somnath Lahri was against the law of sedition. Eventually, the idea of sedition got abrogated from constitution but still exists in Indian penal code, 1870.  The seditious charges are still applied on people in India but, in Britain where the law got its origin got scrapped in 2009. Case of Arundati Roy, Kanaihya Kumar, Aseem Trivedi, Umar Khalid, Dhaval Patel etc. are some examples. The debate of whether sedition is good or bad is still on going.

DEFINITION OF SEDITION

Sedition is defined as an apparent act like speech, organisation which can led to rebellious activities against the established order. It can also include demolition of constitution and can also often led to incitement of serious mutiny against the authorities. Sedition can be any type of furore even if it is not aimed at direct violence against the law. Seditious words in written format is called as seditious libel. A seditionist is defined as a person who is engaged in the interest of sedition.

SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124 A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1870 : PROVISIONS AND PUNISHMENT

The term sedition is defined under 124 A of IPC 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 shall be punishable with life imprisonment”.

It is considered as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech which was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay. It is termed as a high value crime in Indian penal code. It is a cognizable offence in which the offender can be arrested without any warrant and it also allows the police to start investigation without any permission from court.  Sedition is defined as disloyalty towards the authorities. The punishment available for the crime of sedition are it being a non- bail able offence, three years of imprisonment to imprisonment for life added with a fine. The person accused with the crime of sedition cannot apply for a government job or have to live their lives without passport and have to attend the legal proceedings whenever necessary.

SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES

An act is termed as seditious if it satisfies the following aspects:

  • It should instigate hatred or discontent against the government.
  • It should results in violence or public insurgency.
  • It can include seditious libel: written or spoken sedition which includes posters etc.
  • Raising of slogans against government.
  • A speech of an individual that incite violence and disturbs public order.

DEFENCES AVAILABLE FOR THE LAW OF SEDITION

The possible defences that are available for sedition are:

  1. He/ she didn’t tried to attempt disaffection or disloyalty.
  2. The disaffection is not against the government.
  3. He/she is not the one who made the remarks against the Government.

SEDITION AND RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian constitution states that:  “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. It also provides the right of a citizen to express their views through any modes like:  writing, films, pictures etc. it is deemed as a basic, fundamental right of every citizens of the country. But these rights are not absolute and can be restricted by the norms of reasonable restrictions under article 19(2).

  The sedition law was formulated during the era of British to impose restriction on people to not to speak against government policies. Many famous personalities like Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Mahatma Gandhi etc. was charged with the law of sedition. Currently there are various issues in which the law of sedition was misused to curtail people from excersing their right to speak against government policies. There is always an overlap that exists in case of sedition and article 19 (1) (a).

Long years back, during the drafting of fundamental rights, Sardar Vallabhai Patel urged to include sedition as a reasonable restriction under article 19 (2). Due to the majority opposition, the sedition charges were excluded from article 19 (2).  Currently there are over 8 reasonable restrictions. They are:

  1. Sovereignty and integrity of the country.
  2. Public order.
  3. Contempt of court.
  4. Defamation
  5. Friendly relation with foreign states.
  6.  Decency and morality.
  7. Incitement to violence.

From this we can learn that sedition is not a ground for restriction against the right of free speech. But at the same time it can bring a curtail to our right of free speech if it incite public order. Article 124 A of Indian penal code, 1860 states that:

 “Any person by words either spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or execute or attempt to excite disaffection towards government established by law in India”. From this we can perceive that sedition will only be charged on a person, if his/ her words incite violence and disturbs public order.

CASE LAWS

  1. Shreya singhal v. union of India [1]: this is the landmark case in the history of sedition law where the word “speech” was defined. In this case, Supreme Court stated that through you spoken or written words can propagate whatever they want to but doesn’t incite people into violence. If any such act had led to affect the peace and tranquillity of public then the person who committed the offence will be charged with sedition.
  2. Kedar nath Singh v. state of Bihar [2]: in this case the constitutional validity of sedition law was questioned. Here, kedar nath Singh, former communist party leader of Bihar conducted a speech and he was convicted by first class magistrate on sedition charges. And the appeal before Supreme Court stated that the sedition law curbs the right to freedom of speech. In this case Supreme Court ruled that a person can say or write whatever he/she like about Government but with a condition of not inciting violence or not without disturbing public tranquillity.

CONCLUSION

Sedition law, a law which is over 150 years old are being successfully used by our successive Government. If we are taking a year in account, there are many cases reporting but only few of them reach the conviction stage. Many cases including Disha Ravi, Arundati Roy etc. was misused by police. Right to freedom of speech being a fundamental right will have an upper hand over sedition law. But if it ever curtails a person’s right to exercise their fundamental right, then the law should be scrapped.

ENDNOTES

  1. AIR 2015 SC 1523
  2. 1962 AIR 955
  3. https://indiankanoon.org/
  4. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2017/apr/28/police-question-jnu-students-in-kanhaiya-sedition-case-1598800.html
  5. CONSTIUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA BY DR. JN PANDEY

This article is written by Nourien Nizar student at Government law college, Ernakulum, Kerala.

The Never-Ending Controversy Around Section 124A IPC- Sedition

Posted on

Introduction

Sedition laws were enacted in 17th Century England when legislators accepted that only positive opinions about the government ought to be expressed, as negative and coercive opinions were inconvenient to the public authority and government. 

The law was initially drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, a British history specialist. At first, Section 124A was not included in IPC when it was authorized in 1860. Sedition was, in this manner, made an offense in British India since the Government speculated on a Wahabi uprising. Wahabi movement was kind of a revivalist movement that tried to purify Islam by discarding the un-Islamic practices which were introduced into Muslim society through ages. The period of the movement can be marked from the 1820s to the 1870s. Accordingly, in 1870, Section 124A was added to Chapter VI of the IPC, which is dedicated to offenses against the State. 

Sedition is a crime under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which says- ‘whoever by 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 life imprisonment.

Three explanations added to the provisions recommend that while “disaffection” will incorporate disloyalty and all feelings of animosity, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, won’t establish an offense. 

Remarkable Sedition Trials Of All Time: 

The penal provision proved to be useful to curb patriot voices and demands for freedom. The extensive rundown of India’s national heroes who were categorized as accused in cases of sedition includes Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, and Jawaharlal Nehru.

The first among the nationalist was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose of 1891. Bose was the editor of the newspaper named Bongobasi. He wrote an article condemning the Age of Consent Bill for posing a threat to religion and for its negative influence on Indians.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the main individual to be convicted for sedition in British India. The British government brought the charge, alleging that the articles conveyed in Tilak’s Marathi paper Kesari would incite individuals to thwart the government endeavors for checking the plague epidemic in India. In 1897, Tilak was alleged by the Bombay high court for sedition under Section 124A and was put behind the bars for 18 months. Tilak was held liable by a jury made out of nine individuals, with the six white jurors casting a ballot against Tilak, and three Indian jurors casting a ballot in support of Tilak. Afterward, Section 124A was given various interpretations by the Federal Court, which started working in 1937, and the Privy Council, which was the highest court of appeal situated in London. 

The Privy Council followed the precedents set down for Tilak’s situation and decided that incitement to violation was not a prerequisite for the crime of sedition and that incitement of feelings of enmity against the government was adequate to set up charge under Section 124A.

Status of Sedition Law after Independence: KM Munshi moved an amendment to eliminate “sedition” that was mentioned in the draft Constitution as a ground to impose limitations on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, the word “sedition” was subsequently removed from the Constitution when it was adopted on November 26, 1949, and Article 19(1)(a) gave complete freedom of speech and expression. However, Section 124A kept on remaining in the IPC.

In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the first amendment to the Constitution to restrict freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and authorized Article 19(2). The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, repealed the age-old 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure, and eventually, sedition was made a cognizable offense approving the police to arrest without a warrant.

Sedition Law As A State-Protection Mechanism:

  • Area 124A of the IPC has its utility in battling hostility to public, secessionist and terrorist elements. 
  • It shields the chosen government from endeavors to overthrow the public authority through brutality and unlawful means. The continued presence of the government set up by law is a fundamental state of the steadiness of the State. 
  • If the contempt of court welcomes penal section, condemnation of government should likewise invite penal sanction. 
  • Numerous districts in various states face a Maoist insurgency. Rebel organisations essentially run an equal administration. These gatherings transparently advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against this background, the nullification of Section 124A would be ill-advised only on the grounds that it has been wrongly summoned in some exceptionally publicized cases.

Sedition Law As Colonial Oppressive Tool:

  • Section 124A is a relic of colonial oppression and unnecessary in a democratic government. It is a limitation on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. 
  • Dissent and reasonable criticism of the government are fundamental elements of vigorous public discussion in a democratic government. They ought not to be built as sedition. Right to question, scrutinize and change rulers is basic to a democracy. 
  • The British, who introduced sedition to mistreat Indians, have themselves abrogated the law in their country. There is no explanation, for what reason ought not India to nullify this part. 
  • The terms utilized under Section 124A like ‘offense’ are ambiguous and dependent upon various interpretations of the investigating officers.

Reference To Landmark Judgements:

The problem emerging from different opinions of the High courts was at last settled by the Supreme Court through its judgment in the Kedar Nath case in 1962, which is viewed as the most definitive judgment of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the sedition law. A Constitution bench upholds the legitimacy of the sedition law laid down in IPC, holding that the objective behind the crime of sedition was to prevent the government set up by law from being overthrown by some unscrupulous activities. In Balwant Singh and Anr Vs State of Punjab (1995), the Supreme Court dropped sedition charges against two men who raised slogans for an autonomous Sikh majority State outside a movie hall in the aftermath of the assassination of the former PM Indira Gandhi. The court decided in favor of the accused, calling attention to the fact that acts didn’t add up to sedition since the slogans didn’t prompt any unsettling influence, and was not prone to instigate any violence in the minds of the targeted group.

The Law Commission of India, in its report, distributed in August 2018, additionally saw that while holding the law of sedition was important to secure public trustworthiness, it should not be used as an instrument to check free speech.

Conclusion:

India is the largest democracy globally, and the right to free speech and expression is the heart and soul of a well-functioning democracy. The articulation or thought that isn’t in agreement with the strategy of the government ought not to be considered as sedition. Obviously, it is fundamental to secure public safety and integrity. So, the best option is to choose a mid-way that will actually solve the problem rather than ruthless and baseless arrests and detention.

The article is written by Sayani Das pursuing BBA.LLB (H) from Amity Law School, Kolkata.

The article has been edited by Shubham Yadav, pursuing B.com LL.B. from Banasthali Vidyapith.

Latest Posts

Archives