Related Topics

PIB’s Fact Check Unit
2024 MAR   23
Digital Cookies
2023 OCT   3
Types of Bail in India
2023 MAR   24
Right to be forgotten
2023 MAR   10

SEDITION LAW IN INDIA

2020 OCT 30

Mains   > Polity   >   Executive   >   Fundamental rights

WHY IN NEWS:

  • The Supreme Court in March, 2020 refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

  • Sedition laws were enacted in 17th century England when lawmakers believed that only good opinions of the government should survive, as bad opinions were detrimental to the government and monarchy.
  • This sentiment was borrowed and inserted into the Section 124A of IPC in 1870, by the British.
  • British used Sedition law to convict and sentence freedom fighters. It was first used to prosecute Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897.
  • Mahatama Gandhi, too, was later tried for sedition for his articles in Young India.

NEED FOR SEDITION LAW:

  • To curb secessionist movements:
    • Sedition law helps the government to curb secessionist movement and other extremist propaganda.
  • Reasonable restriction of rights is necessary to ensure that one’s right is not violating other’s right
    • The constitution of India prescribes reasonable restrictions in Article 19; that can always be imposed on this right in order to ensure its responsible exercise and to ensure that it is equally available to all citizens.
  • Sedition laws are within the scope of International conventions on rights:
    • For instance, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, provides that right to free speech may be subjected to restrictions for the protection of national security or public order

JUDICIARY ON SEDITION LAW:

  • In Brij Bhushan v/s State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar v/s the State of Madras (1950), Supreme Court held that a law which restricted speech on the ground that it would disturb public order was unconstitutional.
    • Thus, these decisions prompted the First Constitution Amendment, where Article 19(2) was rewritten to replace “undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public order”.
  • In Kedar Nath Singh v/s State of Bihar (1962) Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but limited its application to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”.
  • In Balwant Singh v/s State of Punjab (1995), SC held that mere sloganeering which evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.

ARGUMENT AGAINST:

  • Against right to free speech in Article 19:
    • Sedition laws lead to a sort of unauthorised self-censorship, for it produces a chilling effect on free speech.
    • Free speech is one of the most significant principles of democracy and is the first and foremost human right
  • Anti-democratic:
    • It suppresses what every citizen ought to do in a democracy — raise questions, debate, disagree and challenge the government's decisions.
  • Global practices:
    • Many of the countries like United States and Australia where such laws existed had repealed the same. Even the UK, where the law originated, has already repealed it.
  • Against international conventions:
    • Sedition laws are incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of UN
  • Against the spirit of framers of Constitution:
    • The Constituent Assembly debated to include sedition as a ground for restricting free speech.
    • However, this was successfully opposed for fear that it would be used to crush political dissent
  • Rampant misuse:
    • For instance in 2019, A lower court in Bihar directed the filing of an FIR under section 124A (Sedition) of IPC against 49 eminent persons who signed an open letter to the Prime Minister of India expressing concerns over mob lynching.
    • Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that 194 cases of sedition have been filed since the CAA was passed on December 2019. Most of these cases were booked against for mere sloganeering etc.

SUGGESTIONS:

  • Role of Judiciary:
    • The higher judiciary should use its supervisory powers to sensitize the magistracy and police to the constitutional provisions protecting free speech.
  • Limit its applicability:
    • The definition of sedition should be narrowed down, to include only the issues pertaining to the territorial integrity of India as well as the sovereignty of the country.
  • Role of civil society:
    • Civil society must take the lead to raise awareness about the arbitrary use of Sedition law.
  • A detailed parameters for the invocation of Section 124A
    • There is a need to lay down parameters for the invocation of Section 124A to avoid situation in which an unrestricted recourse to this law would result in a serious encroachment of guarantee of personal liberty

CONCLUSION:

  • As the Constituent assembly member Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar noted “It must be the fundamental right of every citizen in the country to overthrow that government without violence”
  • Therefore the sedition laws must invoked only in cases where the entire state itself is sought to be overthrown or undermined by force, leading to public disorder.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Given the frequent misuse of sedition law in India, what is the extent to which the citizens of our country may enjoy the ‘right to offend’? Analyse.