This research paper aims to provide a comprehensive study of the legality of sedition in India. Sedition, as Defined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), criminalises acts that promote or incite violence, Disaffection, or hatred towards the government of India. The objective of this study is to critically examine the Legal framework surrounding sedition, including its historical context, , and its difference with free speech in India and some international jurisdictions aswell. Through an in-depth analysis of relevant laws, landmark cases, and some suggestions, this paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the balance between national Security and the fundamental rights of citizens.
Keywords: Sedition, Section 124A, Freedom Of Speech, Law Of Sedition
INTRODUCTION
Any sort of speech, deed, or writing that stirs up animosity towards the status quo and jeopardises the nation’s enduring peace is seditious. The word “sedition,” according to the Oxford Dictionary, means,” behaviour or speech encouraging people to rebel against the rule of a state or a king.” Before and after independence, a number of writers, artists, and activists were targeted under the legislation of sedition under section 124A IPC, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, and Mahatma Gandhi. The IPC’s political section 124A, which was created to restrict a citizen’s freedom, was dubbed by Mahatma Gandhi as the section’s crown jewel. India gains sovereignty upon its declaration of independence because the Preamble to the Constitution was created by its citizens. In contrast to the British Parliament, the Indian Parliament is limited in its authority. It now appeared that a citizen’s right to criticise the government is more important than a government’s right to defend itself from sedition. Sedition is a crime that falls outside of international rules, which restricts the freedom of expression. The law against sedition was created during the monarchical era, and it now goes against the basic foundation of the democratic form of governance.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This is doctrinal research aimed to analyse the law of sedition in India. The study deals with existing laws and relevant cases. For this purpose, the research includes usage of secondary sources like scholarly articles, published research papers, and journals.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA
The historical context of sedition laws in India can be traced back to the colonial period when India was under British rule. The origins of the sedition law in India can be attributed to the British Crown’s attempt to suppress dissent and maintain control over its colonial subjects.
The sedition law was introduced in India in 1870 as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Its enactment was a response to the increasing resistance and dissent against British colonial rule. The British government sought to curb any activities that were perceived as threats to their authority and control. The sedition law served as a powerful tool for the colonial administration to maintain order, control political dissent, and suppress revolutionary activities. It was part of a broader strategy to quell nationalist movements and prevent the rise of mass mobilisation against British rule.
With the advent of independence in 1947, India retained the sedition law as part of its legal framework. The rationale behind its retention was to ensure the maintenance of social harmony and protect the integrity of the newly established democratic state. However, the continuation of the sedition law post-independence has been a subject of criticism and debate. Many argued that it was anachronistic and incompatible with the principles of free speech and democratic values.
SEDITION IN S 124A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE
Section 124A of Indian Penal Code defines sedition 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, 2*** the Government established by law in 3[India], 4*** shall be punished with 5[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.
Explanation 1. —The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2. —Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3. —Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.]”
PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE OF SEDITION
It is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which a fine may be added. A person charged under this law is barred from a government job. They have to live without their passport and must produce themselves in the court at all times as and when required
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
- Intention: The intention of the person is of grave importance. It makes or breaks the case. The intention of the person as a whole is examined, taking into account his speeches, the context, and the general drift. The desire harboured by the person accused must be to invoke the feeling of hatred, contempt, or disaffection in the people towards the government. This desire must be coupled with the intention to incite violence or public disorder. It is also important that the person knows that such an act or attempt will result in the said reaction. In sedition, the intention of the language used is punished, no matter its success. Hence, the person should have willingly done the act with the above-mentioned desire and knowledge.
- Act: The act under the Section Is the act of speaking or writing words, making signs or visual representations, or any other such act. Sedition can be done through any material. For example, Letter, Published article, Videography, Poster, Speech, etc. It is important to note that publication of some kind is necessary to bring a case of sedition. Any other act may include the act of distribution, republication, or circulation of seditious material.
- The Intended Act Is Done Towards The Government Established By Law In India: It is of grave importance that the intended act be done towards a government in India. When the government established by law is undermined and its continuity is threatened, the visible symbol of the state is in danger. The stability of the government is of grave importance. Any threat towards its stability and continuity is an offence against the State. This is when sedition comes into play. Hence, if the act is done toward Private person, Association, Government company, Political party, A foreign government, or an Officer of the state (including a soldier, sailor, or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force). It would not come under the offence of sedition.
- Violence Or Public Disorder: The incitement of violence or public disorder is a conditional element of sedition. It is necessary for the act of sedition to cause, or be likely to cause, violence or public disorder. There must be a reasonable link (nexus) connecting the alleged seditious material and the violence or disorder. A far-fetched assumption that the violence or public disorder could have been caused by the alleged seditious material is not enough for the conviction of the accused. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove the proximity of the link between the alleged seditious material and the incitement of violence or public disorder.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEDITION IN INDIA
The protagonist of one point of view argues that Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires of the Constitution to the extent that it tries to punish bad feelings against the government. This is an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a), and is not protected under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution by the expression expressed in the interest of the public order. While, in their draft Constitution, the editors of the Constitution included “Sedition” and the term “public order” as a basis for defining the laws they limit. However, the fundamental right of expression (article 13) in the final draft of the Constitution, both “Public order” and Sedition were eliminated from the exception to the right to freedom of speech and expression Article 19, clause (2). The contradiction that occurred before the publisher of the Constitution was that if the word Sedition were also used in Article 19(2) the pronunciation of judicial commission that Sedition as defined in the Indian Penal Code does not necessarily involve any intention or tendency to incite disorder. In these circumstances it is not surprising that they decided not to use the word “Sedition” in clause (2) but used more general words that describe Sedition and everything that makes Sedition similar to a serious crime. That Sedition generally undermines state security through Means of public disorder are also an issue that undermines state security.
Only Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution is limiting a person by making such a law that goes against the integrity and sovereignty of India. This plea was also added later by the Constitution Law in 1963. The main goal behind this is to ban anyone from making statements that call into question the integrity and sovereignty of India. Reasonable restrictions may be
imposed on freedom of speech and expression, in the interest of state security. All statements intended to jeopardize state security for violent crimes designed to overthrow the government, conduct wars and rebellions against the government, external aggression or war, etc., can be limited in the interest of state security.
Regarding the meaning and scope of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is the question of vires that arises due to the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Indian Constitution and the power of the courts in accordance with the Constitution to act as guarantors and protectors of freedoms. Article 19 (1) (a) states that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this right is subject to the limitation imposed under Article 19 (2), which authorizes the state to place “reasonable” restrictions for the following reasons, such as state security, friendly relations with foreign states, order public, decency and morals. Court contempt, defamation, incitement to offense, integrity and sovereignty of India. Bihar v. State Shailabala Devi and Romesh Thappar v. Madras State
-The Supreme court held that, the limits established by the freedom of speech and expression of article 19, paragraph 2, as originally promulgated, have been considered by the supreme court in some cases having allowed a legislative restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression, the Court found that they were very rigid and severe. Freedom of speech and expression means Referring to the limits established by article 19, (2) (a).
HOW DOES SEDITION LAW VIOLATES ARTICLE 19
The article relating to freedom of speech and expression was included in article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. In accordance with what promulgated in subsection (2), nothing in clause (a) of clause (1) will affect the functioning of any existing law insofar as it refers to or prevents the state from enacting any law related to defamation, slander, contempt of the court or any matter that offends decency or morality or that endangers the security of the state or tends to overthrow it. The quarry connected to Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is the extent to which Section 124-A is affected by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution under which each citizen of India has the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this right is qualified by article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
LAW OF SEDITION VS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Every case of sedition has a common defence that the action was done in pursuance of Article 19(1)(a). It was his freedom of speech under which he said those statements. But what people are not aware of is Article 19(2) which states that a speech or an act should not be something which can invoke or incite others against the state. If something is capable of causing unrest in the nation, it can’t be defended by using Article 19(1)(a). This act which incites others to destroy the unity and integrity of the nation will be termed as sedition. It would not be called free speech.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISING S.124-A
Various agencies and leaders have acknowledged that there needs to be revision in the Sedition law of the country. The Law Commission in its report on „sedition‟ has also suggested for a revision in S.124-A.
In the year 2011, a private member Bill titled the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by Mr. D. Raja. The Bill proposed that section 124A IPC should be omitted. It was reasoned that the British Government used this law to oppress the view, speech and criticism against the British rule. Thus, to check the misuse of the section and to promote the freedom of speech and expression, the section should be omitted.
Another Private member Bill titled The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2015, was introduced in Lok Sabha by Mr. Shashi Tharoor to amend section 124A IPC. The Bill suggested that only those actions/words that directly result in the use of violence or incitement to violence should be termed seditious. This proposed amendment revived the debate on interpretation of sedition. The courts through various judgments have settled that the language of this section does not imply that only words, either spoken or written, or signs, or visible representation that are likely to incite violence should be considered seditious.
SEDITION LAWS IN INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION
- New Zealand: The crime of sedition in New Zealand attentively mirrors the understanding of sedition in England. It was codified in Sections 81 – 85 of the Crimes Act of 1961. Following are the points that were noted by both England and New Zealand in abolishing the crime of sedition: Sedition is defined in vague and uncertain terms. This offends the fundamental principles of criminal law. In any case, it refers to a particular historical context (sovereignty residing in the person of the King) which no longer holds. The law is archaic and must be done away with. While certain political views may be unreasonable or unpopular, they cannot be criminalized. This offends democratic values. The definition of sedition offends fundamental freedoms of speech and expression which are universally recognized. In practice, the law is used to silence political opposition or criticism of the government. This has a ―chilling effect on free speech.
- Nigeria: Introduced during the early years of the twentieth century, the law on sedition in Nigeria too is of colonial origin. Reading Section 51 of the Criminal Code, it is evident that it draws inspiration from the English definition of sedition. It classes an act as seditious if it is done with an intention to harm the person of the President or the governor, the justice administration system or the government, if it attempts to alter ―any matter‘s without the use of lawful means, or if it raises discontent, disaffection, ill will of hostility in the population or between different classes of the population in Nigeria. Writers have come to the conclusion that the law was introduced with a view to curbing the writings and speeches of the educated elite under British colonial rule.
- Malaysia: In Malaysia, the Sedition Act, 1948, is of colonial origin. Section 4 defines seditious acts as one where someone ―does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do‖ any act which has or would have a seditious tendency, who utters any seditious words, or who prints, publishes or imports any seditious publication. Furthermore, it is a crime to have in one‘s possession, without lawful excuse, any seditious publication. Although Article 10(1) of the Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, reasonable restrictions have been placed in Articles 10(2) – (4).(4).
CONCLUSION
The word disapprobation means disapproval of man’s sentiments and action towards the government and making a slogan against the government as a censure and censure is an exception in the defamation and it would not amount to disloyalty or disaffection to the government. If it is not come within the exemption of exception, then it would amount to offence of sedition under the Indian Penal Code in the form of words, sentences, pamphlet, circulation of anything would create disruption of law-and-order problem by way of demonstration against the Government. The legality of sedition in India is a complex and evolving topic. Sedition laws have their roots in the colonial era but have continued to be part of India’s legal framework. The interpretation and application of these laws have been subject to scrutiny and debate, with concerns raised about their impact on freedom of speech, democratic discourse, and fundamental rights. The examination of the legality of sedition in India and the proposals for reform or abolition highlight the ongoing need to strike a delicate balance between national security and protecting democratic values, ensuring that freedom of speech and expression are preserved while addressing genuine threats to public safety and order.
Submitted by:
~FAAREHA KHAN
JAMIA HAMDARD UNIVERSITY