ABSTRACT
The Sedition Law has been attracting criticism and hatred since its imposition during the British Ruling period. The ulterior motive behind imposing this law on Indians was to suppress the voices and not let people speak for their own rights against the Government. However, even after 75 years of Independence the point behind still practising this law is not justified. Moreover, there have been instances where the law has been misused against the citizens of this country. So, many questions were raised on this particular topic and this has always been a debate. Sedition Law is henceforth being questioned as a violation of right to speak and express their opinion even after so many years. This paper focuses on the motives, relevance and misuses of Sedition Law. This study revolves around the offence of Sedition and how the law relates to this offence and has changed over time.
KEYWORDS
Sedition, justice, misuse of powers, unconstitutional, ultra vires, political influence, fundamental rights, freedom.
INTRODUCTION
“A society not well-informed is not a society that is truly free.” India being a democratic every citizen is given their fundamental right to speak. As India is an independent nation, freedom of speech is very important in order to let people express their wants, opinions and feelings but there are also some reasonable restrictions which are kept in mind while practising the freedom of speech and thus we can say the right is not absolute. If a person is found to be criticising or showing disaffection to the Government of India through words, writings or visual representation or otherwise, he/she will be charged under the section 124-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the offence of committing the crime of sedition. This law has been imposed since the colonial period and the object of this law is to maintain the respect towards the Government. Sedition law is widely criticised and questioned because of the misuses. It is believed that this law suppresses and violates human rights whereas it is also believed that it is very important to respect the highest authority, The Government of India and hence imposing such laws are justified. Sedition Law as of now is the greatest controversy all over the country and is a heated topic which needs a lot of limelight.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The sources of literature that the researcher put to use were not limited to just journals and books but also included online pdfs and e-books.
A few sources that the researcher would like to put on record are: Law of Torts by Indian Penal Code by K.D Gaur, JSTOR, The Cambridge Law Journal.
Indian Penal Code by K.D Gaur was one of the researcher’s primary sources of content as it had an all-round depiction of the topic and furthermore the expansive availability of case laws on this topic made the researcher use this source extensively.
JSTOR, an e-website helped the researcher dig down deep into the topic by providing access to relevant Cambridge journals which were exceptionally useful. Indian Case Laws were a few in number and the journals focussing on the concept of prescriptive rights were very few in number. It briefly summarizes all the relevant facts and information about the topic. Few articles also state about how sedition was evolved and completely the actual purpose of this law was not served.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper covers all the grounds relating to Sedition and how the law is implemented within the territory of India to curb the menace revolving around the offence of sedition. The method of Research that has been employed in the drafting of this research paper is the Doctrinal form of research. This paper is of descriptive nature and the research is based on secondary sources as the content of this paper include textbooks, articles and journals.
HISTORY AND RATIONALE
[1]Sedition was a expression of a term which was defined, drafted and elucidated by a British historian-politician, Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837 which was when people were explained why and how their speech has an impact on the society. It was enacted by the British Government to suppress the voice of Indians who wanted freedom. Sedition is defined under section 124-A of Indian Penal Code,1860 as “an act by whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visual representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempt 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 fine.” This henceforth clarifies that any act against the Government would be considered as an offence. [2]Even sharing a seditious comment or article would amount to sedition itself, this theory was propounded and held in the landmark case of Raghubir v State of Bihar. Many freedom fighters were also punished under this section for raising their voice against The British Government. The punishment under this section is usually harsh in comparison to other laws. The offences under this section are termed as a cognizable, non bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session which makes it one if the serious offences and hence it can be very difficult for a person to get bailed who is charged under this section. The main motive of the Government was to spread fear and thrill amongst Indians so that it is easy to control their actions.
The first and a well-known case which was filed back then in the pre-independence era under Sedition was [3]Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose followed by [4]Queen Empress v Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Keshav Mahadev Bal 1897 and the landmark case was the famous Mahatma Gandhi Sedition Trial which
During the colonial period many cases were filed and people were convicted unnecessarily under this particular law.
SEDITION POST INDEPENDENCE
[5]Even after independence, Sedition still remained in the Judiciary and the motive behind it was to maintain unity and integrity and not let people pass anti-national comments which may provoke or give rise to riots and public disorder. The other motive was to maintain stability and respect for the state. It was also stated that unless there is a public disorder in accordance with the hate speech it will not be considered as Sedition.
If we analyse properly here are a few cases which explains the need and actual meaning of Sedition cause it’s only the cases and judgements which can explain the motive of this law.
In the case of [6]Tara Singh Gopi Chand v The State, 1951 which was also the first case was a step to improve the society and hence taking some factors into consideration it challenged the constitutionality of sedition post-independence. The court stated that according to the Romesh Thapar case’s mentions of sedition, public disorder and nuisance is necessary in order to prove sedition. The judgement held that even though there are some reasonable restrictions imposed on the right freedom of speech stated in the Indian Constitution still Sedition restricts the scope of free speech and expression among the society.
Further in the case of [7]Sabir Raza vs State, 1955 the Allahabad High Court opined that public order is not a restriction or necessity on Sedition. It was also stated that unless the speech is not affecting the systematic functioning of government it cannot be considered as a threat to the security of the state. So, Sedition was declared void or unlawful since merely threatening someone or expressing hatred, disagreement, or disaffection with the system does not constitute a threat.
In the case of [8]Ram Nandan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959 the facts stated that an agricultural labour activist was charged under sedition. The judgement came out of this case was that Sedition is ultra vires of the fundamental rights and unconstitutional. It was noted that the potential for public disruption does not allow for the justification of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. It was stated that, “A democratic political worldview that differs from that of the ruling class cannot be characterised as a threat to the state.”
Later after 3 years all of these cases were overruled by one landmark case of [9]Kedarnath vs State of Bihar,1962.
According to the facts of this case, there was a person who belonged to the Forward Communist Party and made a few words critical of the Congress Party. For instance, he claimed that the ruling party is sucking the blood of the mazdoors and Kisan, the “dogs of the CID,” and the “goondas to the gaddi” in Congress. He added that “zamindars and capitalists” had aided Congress. He supported revolution and singled out Vinoba Bhave as the cause of the public’s uncertainty and Congress’s involvement in bribery, corruption, and black marketing. The defendant in this case was accused of sedition and violating Section 505 of the IPC.
Judgement: The Court addressed the constitutionality of the Sedition Law and stated that while the right to freedom of speech and expression is a precondition for a democracy, it is also crucial to impose reasonable restrictions in order to maintain public safety, integrity, order, morality, etc. Therefore, the Constitution has the authority to enact any law intended to ensure the public’s safety and security. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Constitution and Sections 124-A and 505 of the IPC are intra vines of the Constitution. Because of this, it was also declared that there was no desire to cause public commotion and disturbance of law, the accused is not liable for any offence.
From this we can interpret that mere criticism and opinion or disagreement does not compute sedition. This is a much wider concept and we can hence say that the government or the judiciary never intended or let this provision to be misused.
COMPARISON WITH FEW OTHER NATIONS
Sedition is a serious offense in many countries, including India. It refers to any conduct or speech that incites rebellion or resistance against the government. While the concept of sedition is similar across different countries, the laws governing it can differ significantly. In this response, I will provide a comparative study of sedition laws in India and other countries.
Any behaviour or statement that fosters or tries to foster hatred or contempt for the government is considered sedition in India. According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is a crime. In India, sedition is punishable by a fine and either a life sentence or a sentence of up to three years in prison. The sedition law in India has been criticized for being vague and open to misuse mainly because of the political influence. The law has been used to silence dissent and criticism of the government, leading to concerns about the free speech and expressions of the citizen of this particular country.
In the territory of the United Kingdom, sedition is defined as any conduct or speech that incites public disorder or undermines the authority of the government. Sedition is a common law offense in the UK and is not defined by statute. The law of sedition in the UK has been largely repealed and replaced by laws on terrorism and incitement to racial and religious hatred. However, the offense of seditious libel still exists in Scotland, which makes it a criminal offense to defame the monarch or the government.
In the United States, sedition is defined as any conduct or speech that incites rebellion against the government. Sedition is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2384.
The US sedition law has been largely dormant for many years, and it has been rarely used to prosecute individuals. The law has been criticized for being outdated and unconstitutional, as it conflicts with the First Amendment right to free speech.
In Australia, sedition is defined as any conduct or speech that incites disaffection against the government or the Constitution. The sedition law in Australia is contained in the Criminal Code Act 1995. The sedition law in Australia has been criticized for being overly broad and open to misuse. The law has been used to persecute peaceful protestors and government critics.
England: The most important aspect which should be highlighted as much as possible is the during colonial period, Britisher who punished several Indians for the offence of sedition claimed this offence as a very serious crime. After Independence this law remained unchanged in India but this wasn’t the case in England. Under the old law of sedition, it was a crime to publish or speak words that were intended to bring the monarch or government into contempt or disrepute, to excite hatred or disaffection against the government, or to incite people to use violence against the government or its officials.
The law was often used to suppress political dissent and to silence critics of the government. Some notable cases include the trial and imprisonment of the suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst for sedition in 1913, and the prosecution of the Irish republican leader, Roger Casement, for sedition in 1916 but the law on sedition has evolved over time in England and has been the subject of much debate and controversy. In 2009, the law on sedition was abolished and replaced with the offence of encouragement of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2006. Overall, while sedition is no longer a specific crime in England, there are still laws in place to protect against speech that incites violence or hatred, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Terrorism Act 2006.
CURRENT POSITION OF SEDITION
[10]With growing controversies Sedition managed to maintain its position till date but till when will it last as there has been a lot of questions raised against its constitutionality.
Recently in a case of [11]S. G Vombatkre v Union of India, 2022 The Supreme Court of India has consented to consider the case of Sedition’s constitutionality. The Central Government is currently re-examining the subject, and the Court has ordered that no new charges of sedition be filed until further notice, and that all ongoing proceedings be put on hold. During the past there was a clear interpretation of the law as it will only attract liability if there is any sense of public order and threat to the state but in recent time this system has inclined more towards the discretion of the government and ruling party. Every other person is put behind bars for merely no reason but for speaking for their rights. According to a report published in 2020, a huge number of sedition prosecutions were filed against persons protesting for CAA NRC, however the National Crime Record Bureau revealed that just four of the 194 cases filed resulted in actual convictions. Furthermore, several reasons were voiced in opposition to this law.
Here are few arguments against the validity of 124-A:
1. This law is a colonial relic and cannot be suited in a democratic nation like India. Moreover the Britishers, who actually introduced and imposed this law to suppress the voice of Indians have themselves abolished this law in their country
2. The word “disaffection” mentioned in the provision is very subjective and can be interpreted in many ways which is the biggest disadvantage of this law as it can be assumed to the whims and fancies of the officer.
3. Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act have provisions that penalises disruption of public order and violence against Government.
4. The most important argument which attracted many scholars and critics is that criticism and dissent of Government should be constructed as sedition as democracy itself means “of the people, by the people and for the people”. So it is a very important part of democracy to show dissatisfaction toward the Government and let them know about the citizen’s expectations.
Here are a few recent case studies which will help us understand the concept better.
In the famous case of [12]Vinod Dua v Union Of India, 2021, the facts speaks that Mr Vinod Dua who is also a Padmashri recipient and a journalist was charged under sections 124-A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code for uploading a video discussing the state-wide lockdown and the urgent health concern created by Corona. He also stated that the government did not analyse the circumstance and did not provide adequate facilities. He also mentioned massive worker migration, and it was claimed that Vinod Dua is distributing incorrect information and disrupting public order.
Judgement: While dismissing Vinod Dua’s sedition case, the Supreme Court stated that the words represented genuine concern for society and could not be considered seditious. It affirmed every journalist’s right under the right to free speech and expression to critique, even harshly, the government’s policies without resorting to violence. A journalist’s free speech should be protected by Article 19 of the Constitution and should be immune from charges of sedition. The court stated in its decision that the essence of true democracy is simply criticising governments. The right to fair and reasonable criticism is a source of strength rather than weakness for a nation. As a result, the government should attempt to stifle individual speech and expression. Vinod Dua v. Union of India is regarded as a landmark decision that defended the virtues of free speech and expression, as well as understanding the independence essential for journalism to execute its responsibility as the fourth pillar of democracy.
The [13]Disha Ravi case popularly known as “the toolkit case” also led to a few judgments which contributed to the analysis of the Law.
The facts state that during the famous farmers protest many great personalities tweeted regarding the issue of the new bill which was about to be passes. Disha Ravi, being an environmental activist after sharing her views regarding the government’s decision was arrested for her active participation in sharing a toolkit during the farmer’s movement against the new farmer’s bill 2020. She was alleged to have committed the offence of sedition and criminal conspiracy. Disha Ravi was detained for using a toolkit to disseminate anti-Khalistan sentiments with the help of pro-Khalistan activists. She was the author of the paper titled ‘toolkit google docs,’ which eased the toolkit’s transfer and elevated her to the role of main conspirator.
Judgement by the Court stated that the Citizens are the conscience keeper of the Government in any nation that claims to be a democratic nation and they have to be given the right to speak out loud about their disagreement with the government otherwise what’s the point of the democracy when the motive is to supress the people’s voice
[14]Shreya Singhal v Union Of India
The Information Technology Act of 2000’s Section 66A was invalidated in this case, which makes it extremely important. In one instance, the police detained the two women after discovering that one of them had ‘liked’ an inflammatory comment made on Facebook following the passing of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray. The Court overturned section 66A of the IT Act 2000 and declared that no one could be charged under section 124-A unless their speech, regardless of how “unpopular,” unpleasant, or inappropriate it may be had a shown connection to any acts of violence or disruption of the peace.
In the year 2021 two journalist Kishore Chandra Wangkhemchha and Kanhaiya L Shukla filed a petition in the the Court challenging the constitutional validity of of 124-A
Their arguments and claims were supported by three interventions namely,
Sashi Kumar, a journalist who talked about the ambiguous language of the provision.
Sanjay Jain, a legal professor who said it’s a colonial legacy which we are following
And some media professionals who argued in relation to the relevance of the law.
The list of cases goes on as we keep digging into the topic of Sedition. Even after so many judgements, there have still been irrelevant prosecutions. So we all can say sedition has completely inclined towards the government and the ruling party.
In the Amulya Leona case there was a protest going on regarding CAA NRC. Amulya a 19 year old journalist was a part of this protest and raised a slogan saying “Pakistan Zindabad” and before letting her complete her speech people started shouting and in no time police came and arrested her and she was accused of passing seditious comments and creating public disorder. It took a very long time for her to get bail.
The judge opined that Pakistan, during the past was a part of India and raising slogans for long life of a country we had a hostile relationship with does not amount to Sedition. After further investigation it was found that Amulya was trying to convey something about brotherhood and people misinterpreted it. And just because she raises slogans regarding the long life of a country she cannot be held liable for sedition. The case of [15]Balwant Singh and anr v State of Punjab was also referred where few people raised the slogan of “Khalistan zindabad”.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
[16]If we closely analyse the phases of Sedition we will be able to interpret that this law has been misused since the colonial era. Even after giving a clear view in the case with well-known political rivalry Kedarnath vs State of Bihar, 1962, the section 124-A of IPC continues to be abused by the police and state legislature. There have been many unnecessary FIRs and cases which forced the people to plead for the quashing of this law. The transparency between Government and the Citizens truly defined the features or essence of democracy. The only way the Government can realise its flaw is when people start speaking about it. A layman can only express his disagreement and dissatisfaction through words and speeches. If the Government takes away this right also then how can we expect the nation to develop moreover how can we believe that this nation is truly democratic. There is no doubt that the scope of 124-A is so wide and broad that it is free for people to interpret and it can vary from person to person which actually should not be the case in any law that is imposed. A law should be imposed for the betterment of the society and to avoid unwanted evils. No point can be seen in following a colonial or British legacy passed nearly 50 years ago.
The amendments that can possibly be made is to narrow the scope of the section for it to be less ambiguous. Every law that is imposed may have some flaw or loopholes, many arguments can be raised against the law but it is up to the Judiciary to decide how to implement this law in order to protect the best interest of the citizens. Quashing or modifying the sedition law can possibly help for the upliftment of the society. At last I would want to conclude by quoting a famous line said by Samuel Johnson, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
Author:
Sipra Sethi
Presidency University, School of Law.
[1] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law/
[2] Raghubeer v. State of Bihar, 1986 SCC (4) 481
[3] Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose, ILR 19 Cal 35
[4] Queen Empress v Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Keshav Mahadev Bal,ILR 22 BOM 112
[5] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law/
[6] Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, 1951, 1951 Cri LJ 449
[7] Sabir Raza v. The State, Cri App No. 1434 of 1955
[8] Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 All 101
[9] Kedarnath v. State of Bihar, 1962, AIR 1962 SC 955
[10] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-sedition-law-the-past-present-and-future/#:~:text=The%20law%20on%20sedition%20is,words%2C%20signs%2C%20or%20by%20visible
[11] S.G Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022, MANU/SCOR/106968/2022
[12] Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021, MANU/SC/0363/2021
[13] MANU/OT/0008/2021
[14] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India MANU/SC/0329/2015
[15] Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 411
[16] https://www.epw.in/node/158046/pdf