Implications of sedition law at the age of information

ABSTRACT

This research paper aims to analyze the execution of sedition laws which is in existence since the Victorian era in the context of the upcoming age of information, exploring the challenges in the enforcement of this law and implications that arise in the age of widespread online community and social media allowing global reach. The paper analyzes the historical context of sedition law, the legal framework surrounding the definition of sedition, the criteria for determining seditious acts, and the penalties or consequences associated with sedition convictions. The study will examine how sedition laws work, which has been given diverse interpretations and implications since to make it pass the test of constitutional validation. It will also examine the jurisdictional challenges posed by the modern era such as the chilling effect of sedition law on suppressing dissent and potential infringement upon individuals’ rights to express their opinions and ideas. The context of this paper is to highlight the tension between the law of sedition and the right to freedom of expression which is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a)[1] of the Indian constitution. This research aims to clarify the fundamental tension between maintaining national security and guaranteeing freedom of expression in the digital realm, and to clarify the historical beginnings in the context of the present era.

KEYWORDS

Sedition Law, Modern Era, Freedom of Expression, Civil liberty, Social Media, Dissent etc.

INTRODUCTION

“Affection cannot be regulated or manufactured by law” -M K Gandhi [2]this statement was made with regards to the system. In an age defined by unprecedented technological advancements and global connectivity, the application of sedition laws in the modern era remains a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Entrenched in history, sedition laws were first enacted to safeguard the stability and security of nations by curbing acts that incite violence, overthrow governments, or threaten the fabric of society. However, in recent times, the dynamic nature of societal norms and the proliferation of digital platforms have raised questions about the relevance, scope, and potential abuses of sedition laws.

The concept of sedition is interlinked with public disorder, hampering the peace and harmony of society. From the earliest empires to modern democracies, Governments have sought to strike sensitive stability between preserving national safety and upholding the fundamental right to free right to free expression. [3]However, this balance is more and more challenged within the era of social media, where ideas can spread rapidly and broadly, blurring the lines among legitimate dissent and seditious motive.

In the modern context, sedition laws are often criticized for their potential violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Critics say such laws could be used as a means of repression to stifle dissent and undermine democratic principles. They argue that in an age of rapid information dissemination, sedition laws must be carefully applied to prevent abuse and ensure the protection of civil liberties.

On the other hand, advocates of sedition laws emphasize the need to maintain social cohesion and avoid incitement to violence or the spread of harmful ideologies that could endanger the safety and stability of society. They argue that while the right to freedom of expression is essential, it is not absolute and must be restricted when it threatens public order, national security or the well-being of citizens. They argue that enforcement of sedition laws is necessary to combat genuine subversion and protect wider social interests.

Navigating the complexities of modern sedition law enforcement requires careful thought and careful approach. Achieving a balance between protecting freedom of expression and maintaining social stability requires clear definitions, transparent legal procedures and safeguards against potential abuse. In addition, adapting existing laws to address the challenges posed by digital platforms and global connectivity is key to ensuring that counterinsurgency law remains relevant and effective in the face of evolving threats.

In conclusion, the application of sedition laws in the modern era demands careful examination and thoughtful deliberation. As societies grapple with the complexities of balancing free expression and societal stability, it is essential to engage in constructive discussions and reforms that preserve democratic values while addressing legitimate concerns regarding security and public order. By doing so, we can foster an environment in which civil liberties are protected, dissent is respected, and the rule of law exists in an interconnected world.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research paper was carried out using a doctrinal method of analysis. The study has been conducted purely based on existing secondary sources inclusive of scholarly works, news articles, judicial precedents, books, websites and journals and analyzing relevant constitutional provisions along with detailed case studies for a complete understanding of the sedition laws evolved to address the challenges posed in the virtual age.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review provides a comprehensive analysis of sedition laws and their application in the new media age. By examining historical developments, legal frameworks, and contemporary challenges, it offers insights into the complex dynamics between freedom of expression, national security, and the regulation of online speech. The review highlights the need for a nuanced approach that balances the protection of civil liberties with legitimate concerns for public safety in the digital era.

Some of the sources included in this reseach paper are:-

Lawmann’s Indian penal code, 1890 aid me to understand the concept of section 129-A and its guidelines.

Few of the article of an e-website, Observer research foundation have helped me delves into the subject providing access journals relating to sedition laws. In India, there was little case law and very few journals focusing on the concept of regulatory rights. It summarizes all the important facts and information in a nutshell. Some articles also talk about the real purpose of this law was not fully achieved.

this paper draws comparative studies on how different jurisdictions approach sedition laws in the modern age. It examines the legal frameworks and policy approaches of different countries and highlights the different approaches.

Origin of sedition law

Law of sedition was not originally the part of the Indian penal code which was drafted by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay also known as the father of Indian penal law in the year 1837, Sedition law came into existence in 1860. Later Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who is the father of Indian evidence act and the law secretary of India from 1869 to 1872 he felt the need for a specific section to tackle dissent against colonial rule. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the law was used primarily to suppress the writings and speeches of prominent Indian nationalists and freedom fighters.

Section 124A states:

“Whoever, 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.”[4]

This section requires two essentials:-

1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards, the Government of India.

2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written, or (ii) by signs, (iii) by visible representation.

Explanation 1 – The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty all feeling of enmity.

Thus expression of strong condemnation towards the State or its institution can never amount to sedition for the simple reason that no institution or symbol alone embodies the whole country in entirely.

Explanation 2 – Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting on attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

In the case (Kedranath singh vs. State of bihar , 1962) it was stated that “criticism of public actions or comments on the actions of the Government, however strong, shall be kept within reason and consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of ‘expression and expression”.

In the landmark case of kedarnath singh , [5]the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Sedition Act. It provides guidance to lower courts in distinguishing between legitimate criticism and inflammatory rhetoric, and sets a higher bar for prosecuting people under sedition laws.

Explanation 3 – comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the government without exciting or attempting to excite the hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Before independence, the law was used to silence criticism and discontent within Indian society, and many freedom fighters such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak were convicted under this provision.

Justice Strachey in Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak [6]observed that intention must be gathered from the language of the articles. The time, the place, the circumstances, and the occasion of publication are important too. It illustrates the conflict between colonial power and freedom of expression, and the legacy of the subject continues to shape discussions of insurgency and freedom of expression in contemporary India.

Even freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi himself faced several charges of sedition in his campaign against British colonial rule. Their acts of civil disobedience and civil disobedience, such as the Salt March and Quit India campaign, were seen as a challenge to British authority and could face charges of sedition. Although there is no specific legal case finding Gandhi guilty of sedition, he has been arrested several times and faces various charges related to his activism. His philosophy of nonviolence and civil disobedience was central to the Indian independence movement and shaped the discourse of political opposition and resistance.

The historical context of the Indian Sedition Act reflects its development under British colonial rule and its impact on the post-independence legal framework. The law originated in ancient and medieval India along with the influence of English common law which shaped its features.

Post-independence developments

After India gained independence from British colonial rule in 1947, courts have played an important role in interpreting and shaping the application of sedition laws. A number of historical judgments have brought important clarification and reassurance to the interpretation of sedition. For the proper functioning of a democracy it is important that its citizen indulge in constructive criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the Government.

Having talked about the importance of freedom of speech and expression, this cannot be denied. It is not enough to look at freedom of speech and expression in isolation. They must understand, speak or express they need to focus on all aspects and essential aspects of the topics of the discussions. This is another aspect of freedom of expression which is the right to be heard, followed by the free flow of information usable The right to information is believed to be inherent in the right to freedom of speech and expression article 19, section 1, (a)[7].

If we analyze correctly, here are some cases that show the need for incitement and its true meaning, because only cases and judgments can explain the reasons for this law.

In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) [8]the Supreme Court ruled that simply chanting slogans without violence or incitement to violence does not constitute sedition. The Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between mere dissent and sedition. The case makes clear that harsh criticism of the government does not automatically constitute sedition unless it directly incites violence or public disorder. It sets a higher standard for sedition charges and protects the right to freedom of speech and expression.

In another recent case of Ms Rajina Parbin Sultana,[9] the petitioner, has been detained since May 16, 2021, under Sections 120B and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971[10]. When a photo of her enjoying lunch at that dining table with several guests went popular on social media, the petitioner was accused of using the Indian National Flag as a table cover on the occasion of the Eid celebration. It was argued that there was sufficient proof that the accused petitioner used a table cloth that looked like the Indian National Flag when welcoming visitors to her home for the Eid celebration.

In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)[11] this case does not specifically pertain to the sedition law, it is significant as it reinforces the court`s commitment to protecting free speech and sets a precedent for evaluating the constitutionality of laws that restrict expression, including sedition laws. The court held that the provisions criminalizing online expression violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. Underscoring the importance of protecting free speech, the court dismissed the article as vague and vulnerable to abuse. The decision sets a precedent for evaluating the constitutionality of laws that restrict free speech and protect the fundamental right to free speech in the digital age.

Application of Sedition Laws in the Modern Times

Sedition law remains a topic of debate today, emphasizing the delicate balance between national security and the basic rights of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. The difficulty in distinguishing pure criticism from sedition speech lies in the subjectivity of assessment. While criticism is an essential aspect of freedom of speech and expression, incitement includes incitement to violence against the state or public order. The challenge is to determine the intent and impact of the speech, as well as the context of the speech. Distinguishing genuine dissent from speech that poses a real threat to public order or national security requires careful consideration of the expressed content, intent, and potential consequences. This distinction is necessary to guarantee freedom of expression while ensuring the maintenance of public order. Courts and the legal system have worked hard to establish clear criteria and standards to address this dilemma, but self-assessment still challenges striking the right balance[12].

India’s 156-year-old, colonial-era sedition law which have been either diluted or have completely done away with laws on sedition in the recent past in several countries across the world including Ireland, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda. But sedition law are followed in some of the international jurisdiction such as UK, USA, Malaysia, New Zealand etc.[13]

In 13th century England, sedition law was seen as a tool to suppress the freedom of the press and its ability to criticize the king. The Sedition Act of 1661 punished anyone who wrote printed or broadcast sermons against the king. It evolved into defamation and defamation of the reputation or actions of government officials and judges. The goal is to protect ordinary people’s trust in government and prevent society from “breaking the peace.” In recent years, the offense of sedition has been largely superseded by other legislation, such as the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Public Order Act 1986, which address concerns like national security and public order.

In USA the application of sedition laws is governed by the United States Constitution and federal law. The United States has a long tradition of protecting free speech under the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to express opinions, including criticism of the government. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio [14]established a clear standard for the application of sedition laws. The Court held that speech should only be suppressed if there was an intent to incite imminent unlawful conduct and a high likelihood that it would do so. The standard sets a high standard for prosecuting people for inflammatory speech, focusing on incitement to imminent violence. In summary, sedition laws prosecutions for sedition are rare in USA.

In recent years, Malaysia has been debating and advocating for the repeal or amendment of the Sedition Act. Critics say the law is vague and can be used to silence dissent and limit free speech. However, after a scientific cut-off in September 2021, the sedition law is still in place. It is recommended to consult the latest legal resources for the latest information on the application of sedition law in Malaysia. Like in the case of Maria Chin Abdullah v. Public Prosecutor (2016) [15]Prominent human rights activist Maria Chen Abdullah was arrested for her role in organizing street protests and charged with sedition under the Sedition Act. The case raised concerns about the use of sedition laws to target activists and limit the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The law is old and should be repealed. Although some political opinions may be irrational or unpopular, they cannot be criminalized. This violates democratic values. Defining rebellion violates basic freedoms of speech. In practice, the law serves to silence political opposition or criticism of the government. This has a “chilling effect” on free speech [16].

In New Zealand, The previous sedition offense was repealed in 2007 with the enactment of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offenses) Amendment Act. In addition, the Crimes Act 1961 does contain provisions related to sedition, specifically under Section 81 includes provisions criminalizing incitement to an offence, such as incitement to violence, incitement to racial strife or incitement to public order. These provisions are designed to eliminate speech or behavior that encourages or facilitates illegal activities that may endanger public safety or social cohesion. However, the application of these provisions has been limited, and there have been discussions about their repeal or amendment.

Since 2010, India has filed about 800 sedition cases against more than 13,000 people, according to various reports. The National Crime Records Bureau’s report, Crime in India 2020, said there were 70, 93 and 73 cases of sedition in 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively. Although sedition cases increased, convictions remained weak. Despite these concerns and the backlash against the abuses, the sedition law persisted and, until recently, no prosecutions were carried out under Section 124A. But with the union of India in the case of S.G. Wombatker v Union of India [17]and Associates Act Section 124 A on sedition is suspended. This case has been a has been monumental for the future of dissent in the country.

SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSIONS

“The sedition law needs reconsideration”-Dr. Justice (Retd.) Balbir Singh Chouhan [18]

The law of sedition has being misused and misinterpreted since colonial times and its application being uncertain and non-uniform in all the cases. Narrowing the scope of sedition laws to ensure they only apply to cases of direct incitement to violence or armed insurrection. This will help prevent sedition charges from being misused to stifle legitimate opposition and criticism. Develop the tools and experience to effectively distinguish between simple criticism or opposition and speech that incites violence or poses a genuine threat. A committee should be appointed to re-evaluate the law and clarifying the scope of sedition. It should examines at the ways that social media sites and other online communication tools can increase the effect and reach of seditious content as well as the potential use of technology solutions to find and remove such content without unreasonably restricting free speech. The courts must play an important role in interpreting and upholding these constitutional provisions relating to sedition laws and ensuring that any restrictions on free speech are reasonable and consistent. Any reassessment of sedition law should be guided by international human rights standards, such as those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These rules emphasize the importance of protecting freedom of expression and limiting restrictions on expression to what is necessary, provided, and specified in law in age of information.

These proposals seek to balance the needs of national security, public order and the basic right to freedom of expression. Any reform or amendment to the Sedition Act must be carefully considered, taking into account India’s unique social, cultural and political context. An inclusive discussion and consultation between legal experts, policy makers and civil society organizations is recommended to shape the future of sedition law in India.

Author:

Saptaparni Chattopadhyay

University of engineering and management

[1] Indian Constitution 1950, Article 19 section 1(a)

[2] [NEWSCLICK] https://www.newsclick.in/message-gandhi-sedition-law-designed-suppress-liberty-citizen | June 13, 2023

[4]Lawmann’s Indian penal code, 1890| page no. 34 [ Kamal publishers 2019 ]

[5] KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, 1962 AIR 955

[6] The Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1917) 19 BOMLR 211

[7] Justice Shri V.N Khare, Constitution of India | Prabhat publication | page no. 23

[8] Balwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1975 | 1976 AIR 230

[9] Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam | Bail Appln./1123/2021

[10] THE PREVENTION OF INSULTS TO NATIONAL HONOUR ACT | 1971| Act No. 69

[11] Supreme Court of India| Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015 | AIR 2015 SC 1523

[12] [ OBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION ] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law/ | June 13, 2023

[13] [NEWSLAUNDRY] https://www.newslaundry.com/2016/02/18/india-shares-sedition-laws-with-countries-like-saudi-arabia | June 13, 2023

[14] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

[15] Maria Chin Abdullah v. Public Prosecutor (2016)

[17] S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA (2022), the Supreme Court of India

[18] Sedition law needs relook: Balbir Singh Chauhan, Law Commission chief, [THE ECONOMIC TIMES,] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sedition-law-needs-relook-balbir-singh-chauhan-law-commission-chief/articleshow/51511513.cms. | June 13, 2023

Implications of sedition law at the age of information

1 thought on “Implications of sedition law at the age of information”

Contact Detail

Follow Us