Why sedition law must be revised but retained in India’s statute book

-

Sedition law is one of many pre-Constitution laws brought over from colonial to independent India. As per the Indian Penal Code 1860, sedition means an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards a government established by law. It is a non-bailable offence, with punishment ranging from imprisonment up to 3 years to a life term, to which a fine may be added. A person charged with sedition is barred from travelling abroad pursuant to which they have to surrender their passports, are not eligible for government jobs, and must produce themselves in the court as and when required.

The present controversy surrounding the reconsideration of sedition has led to calls for scrapping the law of sedition as a whole. At the same time, there may be some opposition to the move, which makes it imperative to understand the nuances of sedition law in detail.

Historical background

Originally drafted by British politician-historian Thomas Macaulay in 1837, sedition was inexplicably omitted in the enactment of the IPC in 1860. A decade later, in 1870, the IPC was amended to introduce Section 124A via an amendment forwarded by Sir James Stephen, the chief draftsman of the Indian Evidence Act, who surmised that a separate section was warranted to deal with this special category of offence against the government. With another amendment in 1898, sedition was made a punishable offence. The law has been challenged on several grounds since the time of Independence and Supreme Court verdicts have endeavoured to narrow the ambit of sedition, making its meaning more explicit, unambiguous and precise.

Post-constitutional position on sedition

Article 372 of the Constitution provides for the application of pre-constitutional laws to even independent India in the interest of continuity. Many pre-constitutional laws were also repealed in independent India. Interestingly, the law on sedition has been retained by India post-Independence. In fact, the State has resorted to the active invocation of this law and it has frequently been used to date. The State argues that it is essential to have a law on sedition which serves to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. In multiple instances, the issue of overbreadth is sought to be addressed through the promise of rightful implementation of the law by authorities.

March of the law on sedition

In Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962) the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the law, observing that such power was required by the State to protect itself. However, in this judgement, the apex court attempted to define the contours of the law by stating that an individual could be prosecuted for sedition only if the act ‘caused incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace’. Interestingly in 1968, the Law Commission of India in its 39th Report had rejected the idea of repealing the section. In fact, in its 42nd report of 1971, the Law Commission supported the idea of expanding the scope of sedition to include the Constitution, the legislature and the judiciary, in addition to a lawfully established government.

Supreme Court of India. ANI

Subsequently, several judgements like Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995), Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Common Cause v Union of India (2018) have limited the scope of what constitutes sedition. The common theme reiterated by the apex court through case law has been that charges of sedition cannot be brought just for criticising the government or its policies but any seditious act must have implicit in them the idea of subverting government by violent or illegal means. In 2018, a Law Commission consultation paper on sedition proposed a rethink of Section 124A. It sought to strike a delicate balancing act by commenting that while every irresponsible exercise of the right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious, it also acceded that a revision of Section 124A is warranted to only criminalise acts committed with the intention to disrupt public order or to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means.

Way forward: Addressing the core issue

It is noticeable that sedition has been opposed on account of its overbroad nature and wide meaning which has been used to suit the fancies of the executive. The argument then is not against the law per se but rather against its implementation. A country like India that has some secessionist tendencies (with realities of insurgency, terrorism, etc) needs to protect itself against those speeches which can fundamentally overthrow the government. It is hardly debatable that speech can lead to the violent overthrow of an establishment whereby the State has a legitimate interest to curb such speech.

***

Also Read

Supreme Court puts sedition law on hold: A look back at cases that shook the nation

Explained: What Supreme Court’s historic order on sedition law means for those on trial

The great repression: How sedition law survived in India despite three near-deathblow verdicts

SC to hear pleas to scrap the sedition law today: Explaining the British-era offence and how it's being 'misused'

***

At the same time, it must be borne in mind that all citizens cannot be subjected to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach as they have different realities in different parts of the country. There exist different special laws to deal with such anti-state tendencies. Hence, a right balance between sovereignty and integrity of India and freedom of speech and expression of citizens be strived towards. It is, therefore, the need of the hour that the law on sedition is revised to protect the fundamentally guaranteed liberties of citizens, while at the same time it must be retained in the statute book to meet any unforeseen eventuality.

Snehil and Sushant are final-year students of law at National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Snehil is an International Editor at Cambridge Law Review. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.



from Firstpost India Latest News https://ift.tt/UP78NHZ
Snehil Kunwar Singh and Sushant Arsh Massey Khalkho

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Both COVID-19 vaccine doses needed for good protection against B16172 variant

-
It’s been a concerning few weeks in the UK, with the B16172 variant first taking hold and then spreading to become dominant. This more infectious form of the virus, initially identified in India, is what we’re now going to have to live with – unless it is out-competed by another variant in the future. Worryingly, experts had predicted that B16172 might be able to escape some of the effects of vaccines, which if true would threaten to derail the UK’s plans to finish lifting restrictions from the end of June. However, Public Health England (PHE) has looked at the ability of various variants to evade immunity and says that the UK’s vaccines remain effective against the variants circulating, including B16172. On the surface, this looks like good news. But delve a bit deeper, and things get more complicated, says Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia. PHE’s research found a little drop-off in protection against B16172 among people who were fully vaccinated.
Read more

New coronavirus variant emerge in India: How should our COVID response change?

-
Image
After genome sequencing of over 10,000 COVID-19 cases in India, researchers have discovered a new variant with two new mutations which may be better at evading the immune system. In 15-20 percent of samples from the Indian state of Maharashtra (the state accounting for 62 percent of cases in the country) a new, double mutation in key areas of the virus has been detected. These are now known as the E484Q and L452R mutations. What makes the variant different? Both these mutations are concerning because they are located in a key portion of the virus – the spike protein – that it uses to penetrate human cells. Spike proteins attach via a “receptor binding domain”, meaning the virus can attach to receptors in our cells. These new mutations include changes to the spike protein that make it a “better fit” for human cells. This means the virus can gain entry more easily and multiply faster. Given what we have seen with other similar mutations , it might also make it harder for our immu
Read more

Aditya L1 Mission: Spacecraft is nearing its final phase, says ISRO chief

-
Aditya L1 spacecraft is nearing its final phase, and manoeuvres to enter the L1 point are expected to be completed by January 7, 2024, according to ISRO Chairman S Somanath. “Aditya is on the way. I think it has reached almost its final phase,” the ISRO chief told PTI on the sidelines of an event organised at VSSC to commemorate the 60th year of the First Sounding Rocket Launch. Aditya L1, India’s first space-based mission to study the Sun, was successfully launched on September 2 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) in Sriharikota. The spacecraft, after travelling about 1.5 million km from Earth over 125 days, is expected to be placed in a Halo orbit around the Lagrangian point L1, considered closest to the Sun. He said that the last preparations for the spacecraft’s entry into the L1 point are currently underway incrementally.”Possibly by January 7th, the final manoeuvres will be done for entering into the L1 point,” Somanath added. Among other tasks, it will capture and tr
Read more