A Relook into the Sedition Law - VISION

Material For Exam

Recent Update

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

A Relook into the Sedition Law

 What is the issue?

  • Recent charges of sedition [IPC Section 124A] against individuals have brought the focus back to a law introduced in the Indian Penal Code in 1870.
  • The fact that this law is often used to control dissent calls for a relook into its relevance at the present age.

What was the Supreme Court’s observation?

  • In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
  • It noted it as being a reasonable restriction on free speech as provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
  • It made clear that a citizen has the right to say or write whatever she/he likes about the government, or its measures.
  • But this is only as long as she/he does not incite people to violence against the government and not do things with the intention of creating public disorder.

What are the legal procedures to be followed?

  • Following the Kedar Nath case, the Bombay High Court issued some guidelines in the case of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi.
  • The police must follow these guidelines prior to invoking the provisions of sedition.
  • These include, among others, an objective evaluation of the material.
    • This is to form an opinion on whether the words and actions cause disaffection, enmity and disloyalty to the government.
    • They must be of the magnitude to incite violence or tend to create public disorder.
  • The Court also directed obtaining a legal opinion in writing from a law officer of the district who must give reasons on how the pre-conditions are met.
  • This needs to be followed by a second opinion from the State’s public prosecutor.
  • Courts have on numerous occasions cautioned law enforcement agencies not to misuse the provisions on sedition, and follow court directions.

Why is a relook on the law needed?

  • Regrettably, the above guidelines are grossly ignored.
  • Notably, between 2016 and 2019, the number of cases of sedition under Section 124A increased by 160%.
  • On the other hand, the rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33.3% in 2016.
  • To note, many charged were individuals protesting government action.
    • The Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath held that this falls outside the ambit of sedition.
  • A Constitution Bench upheld the vires of the law of sedition.
  • But the gross misuse of the legal provisions continues.
  • The circumstances thus require a complete relook at the provisions of the sedition law.
  • A lot has changed from 1962 when the Kedar Nath case was decided.
  • In the Internet age, what can lead to public disorder has itself become debatable, as information travels at lightning speed.
  • Even otherwise, clutching on to a foreign legal order is no longer needed.
  • Interestingly, the U.K. repealed the offence of sedition in 2010 and India is holding onto a relic of the British Empire.
  • As recent as 2018, the Law Commission of India too questioned how far it is justified to retain Section 124A.
  • This was especially in view of the fact that several existing statutes take care of various actions which were earlier considered seditious.
  • Moreover, the sedition law necessitates the courts to adopt an effect-based test.
    • It examines the effects of the seditious text rather than a content-based test which reviews the text alone. This seems to be flawed.

What is the way forward?

  • It is not the alleged seditious acts that are creating fragments in the society.
  • It is rather the persecution of individuals and labelling them that are really creating cracks in the socio-politico ecosystem.
  • While the sedition law needs a relook, the need of the hour is to uphold more firmly the principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, and offer space for healthy dissent.

 

Source: The Hindu