Sedition v/s Freedom of Expression
§ What is Sedition:- Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code defines
Sedition. The offence consists in exciting or attempting to excite in others
certain bad feelings towards the government.
§ Why in news: Because of the ongoing case against
the students of Jawaharlal Nehru University.
§ Salient Features of
Sedition :- It has historical and
constitutional perspectives, which are explained below.
§ Conflict between
Sedition and Freedom of Speech :- Freedom of Speech cannot be absolute, it has to be curtailed in
the interest of the society for maintenance of public order.
§ Why the law of
sedition should be repealed :- It is detrimental for the freedom of speech and expression,
which is our fundamental right.
§ Why the law of
sedition should stay:- To maintain public order.
§ Conclusion:- India of the 21st century does not require a
law used by the colonial government to suppress India’s voice.
What is Sedition?
Section 124A of the IPC
defines sedition and says:
§ 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, the government established by law; or
§ whoever by the above means excites or attempts
to excite disaffection towards the government established by law, has committed
the offence of sedition.
The punishment prescribed varies from imprisonment up to three
years to life imprisonment, with fine or without it.
The first explanation says that disaffection includes disloyalty and
all feelings of enmity.
The News
This is particularly
important in the context of the ongoing case against the students of
Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Salient Features
|
Historical Perspective
|
Sedition was not a part of the original
Indian Penal Code(IPC)
enacted in 1860 and was introduced in 1870.
Britishers famously used the clause in three separate,
successful trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and, also, later, in prosecuting
Mahatma Gandhi in 1922.
|
|
Constitutional Perspective
|
The Constitution
bench of the Supreme Court explained the amplitude of sedition for the first
time in 1962 in the case of Kedarnath Vs. State of Bihar (1962).
The court held that “public disorder or the reasonable
anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the gist of the
offence”. The court was of the view that sedition implies resistance or
lawlessness in some form and it was emphasized that if there is no
incitement to violence, there is no sedition.
So, as per the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, a person
can be charged with sedition only if there is incitement to violence in his
speech or writing or an intention to create disorder.
|
Sedition v/s Freedom
of Speech
|
Sedition
|
Freedom of Speech
|
|
The words which directly provoke violence or which directly
threaten the maintenance of public order deserve censure is unquestionable,
especially given India’s constitutional structure.
|
It is abundantly clear that freedom of speech and expression
within the Indian legal tradition includes within its ambit any form of
criticism, dissent and protest. It cannot be held hostage to narrow ideas of
what constitutes “anti national” speech and we hope that the courts will step
in not merely to defend free speech but also pass strictures on those who
abuse the legal process to create a chilling effect on constitutional rights.
|
The Argument Against
Sedition
§ At its core, it is a devastating provision
that is meant to assist in crushing all opposition to the ruling dispensation.
§ Its use continues to have the effect of
chilling free speech and expression in India.
§ Section 124-A of the IPC negates the right to
dissent, which is an essential condition of any reasonable government.
§ Viewed thus, it is Section 124-A that is
“anti-India”, that is opposed to the idea of a legitimate, liberal democratic
state
The
Argument for Sedition Law
§ To maintain the public order
§ It would act as deterrence for anti-social
elements.
Conclusion
Despite the strict
construction adopted by the Supreme Court, the law enforcement agencies have
always used it against artists, public men, intellectuals, et al for criticising the governments. In fact the
Supreme Court itself did not apply these strict principles to the speech of
Kedarnath and his conviction.
The Supreme Court, being the protector of the fundamental rights
of the citizens may step in now and declare Section 124A unconstitutional.
India of the 21st century does not require a law used by the colonial
government to suppress India’s voice.
The line between dissent and treason may be thin to some, but the
ability to distinguish between the two is a constitutional duty of the state.
And given the history of its misuse and its incompatibility with a modern
Constitution, Section 124-A of the IPC ought to be junked altogether.
