Arkaprava Bhattacharya
SEDITION LAW- PAST AND CURRENT TIME
Arkaprava Bhattacharya6
Abstract
Sedition is widely considered as a draconian law from its inception. The urge of the common mass to raise their voice against the political sovereign has been considered as an inherent right in a democratic society. An informed and a participative citizenry whose aim is to refine the law making process via constructive criticisms is a boon for a country. The purpose of a protest should not be violence; it should not alter the integrity of the nation. This basic principle is already there in law which makes it less dark as it is being resembled. Even the common mass can criticize the executive actions too.
Thomas Babington Macaulay in his draft did mention ‘Sedition’ under section 113 but when Indian Penal Code was first passed it wasn’t there. In 1890 through special Act XVII it was added under 124 A. If we compare the then law with the English law, it is a matter of astonishment that the law which was present in England was more deterrent as ‘seditious feelings’ were also taken into consideration. The Act was a catastrophe for Indians; history is the ultimate evidence because from Bal Gangadhar Tilak to Mahatma Gandhi all were victims of this law.
The intention of writing this research paper is to equate the actual pragmatic balance which the present law is providing by analyzing the trail from the colonial regime to modern era. The purpose of a law is to balance the society which will help in maximizing happiness and minimizing friction. In my doctrinal I have pointed out the evolution of sedition law with its current developments. I have also explained why this law is in ‘Abeyance’
KEYWORDS – Sedition, Abeyance, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
1. Introduction
The shift from restorative form of justice to retributive is the biggest pattern which we have observed in the colonial regime. The abusive laws can’t be ignored as it displayed the real picture and the intentions of the Englishmen. Gandhi once called sedition law “The prince among the political provisions of the Indian Penal Code intended to curtail citizen liberty”.7
The misuse of the law makes it infamous. Democracy is all about the voice of the people. The common citizen is the heart and soul of the above mentioned form of government and restriction of dissent arbitrarily via any legislative mechanism destroys the whole idea of the formation of this government. The right to raise voice peacefully forms the bedrock of any republic, it is interesting to note that the law at present which is subsisting allows peaceful protests but the fact is that the misinterpretation and misuse of the law is creating all the cacophony.
The blatant criticism of the law isn’t an appreciable certitude as the aim of the law had always been to bring balance. The History of this controversial section will help to give a conclusion about the impact of the law in the Indian Society.
2. Sedition law and the colonial regime
2.1Sedition law in england
The initial purpose of the centuries-old sedition laws was to safeguard the Monarch and the government against any potential insurrection. The statutes forbade any seditious activities, speech, publications, writing, or other expressions. “Encouraging the violent overthrow of democratic institutions” is a general definition of this goal.8 The following actions are frequently given as examples of those that may be deemed seditious if they are carried out with the intention of inciting violence:
Causing hatred, contempt, or inciting disaffection against the Crown, the government, the constituti on, either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice are among those that may be deeme d seditious if they are done with the intent to incite violence. In addition, inciting people to try to ill egally change matters of the church or state established by law, stirring up crime, or disturbing the peace, is another.
7 Linda Lakhdhir, Sedition law: Why India should break from Britain’s abusive legacy (Feb. 2, 2023), https://scroll.in/article/1028436/sedition-law-why-india-should-break-from-britains-abusive-legacy.
8 (Ex Parte Choudhury, R v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary, [1991] 1 QB 429)
2.2 Sedition in India
Thomas Babington Macaulay was chosen by the Parliament to lead the First Law Commission, which recommended the development of a penal code during the colonial era. After working on the penal code for two years in 1837, Macaulay completed it. Clause 113(4) of the penal code stated that anyone who makes an effort to stir up feelings of dissatisfaction for the legitimate government of the East India Company’s territory among any class of people who live under that government will be punished with expulsion for life or any other term from the territories of the East India Company.
In order to address opposition to colonial rule, the British Government later incorporated this langu age into Section 124A of the Indian Criminal Code; this particular statute was not included in the I PC’s initial design, which was passed in 1860.
The sedition law was mostly utilised in the 19th and 20th centuries to censor speeches and publicati ons by important freedom fighters and Indian nationalists.
The trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891 is considered to be the earliest instan ce of sedition ever recorded.
The Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi trials are two of the most well- known instances of sedition law.
2.2.1. Bal Gangadhar Tilak Case
The three sedition trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, which were widely watched by his followers both domestically and internationally, are one of the most well-known cases. The government alleged that some of his statements about Shivaji killing Afzal Khan were to blame for the next week’s killings of the despised Plague Commissioner Rand and Lieutenant Ayherst, a fellow British officer. The two officers were assassinated while they were leaving Government House in Pune after commemorating the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria’s reign and going to a dinner function there. Tilak was found guilty of sedition but released in 1898 as a result of the involvement of well-known individuals from throughout the world including Max Weber on the condition that he would not use his acts, speech, or writing to incite unrest.
The case of Annie Besant v. Advocate General of Madras 9is another well-known ruling. The issue concerned Section 124A-like language in Section 4(1) of the Indian Press Act of 1910. The applicable provision stated that any press used for printing or publishing newspapers, books, or other documents that contained words, signs, or other visible representations that were likely to incite hatred or contempt for the government was prohibited. The Privy Council confiscated the deposit for Annie Besant’s printing press in accordance with the earlier interpretation of Justice Strachey.
One of the harshest critics of the law was Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister following it s independence from British. According to a report of the 1951 parliamentary debate on free speech in the Hindu newspaper, he declared that the sedition statute “is exceedingly disagreeable and obnoxious…the sooner we do ridof it, the better.”
The idea behind the sedition law is that it prohibits the use of power unfairly. If someone criticizes the policies of the Indian government without intending to incite hatred in others, the law can be heavily utilized by political leaders who find it difficult to accept legitimate criticism from the public. Logically, the requirements listed in Section 124A of the IPC for the Sedition legislation to be charged have very broad parameters, which is why it can be difficult to apply in some circumstances and is quickly abused to punish persons who are innocent.
3. Sedition Law Post Independence
The Constituent Assembly disputed the validity of the sedition statute after India gained its independence in 1947. The Constituent Assembly opted to strike the word “sedition” from the constitution after a contentious discussion (despite keeping Section 124-A of the IPC). But the problematic law was passed by the administration of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, in the form of the contentious First Amendment. The Nehru government not only reinstated the sedition law, but also strengthened the colonial law by adding two expressions – “friendly relations with a foreign state” and “public order” – as grounds for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on free speech under Article 19. (2).10
Section 124-A, however, became a cognizable offence under a new Code of Criminal Procedure during Indira Gandhi’s administration in 1973. This gave police the authority to arrest people without a warrant.
3. Why the law is a concern?
The colonial law has been a helpful instrument for the police and other state institutions since it was reinstated in 1951 for spreading fear in the population and stifling genuine critiques or opposition against governments. Although legal abuse has occurred under every administration that has come before it, it has intensified recently. A examination of recent cases reveals an increase in legal abuse. According to the portal Article 14, 27 sedition cases were filed in connection with the Pulwama tragedy, 22 cases were filed in connection with the coverage of the Hathras gang-rape incident, and 12 cases were brought against prominent protesters opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Seditious actions can include everything from just carrying signs to chanting dissident phrases and delivering personal messages.
In 2021, six famous journalists, including Rajdeep Sar Desai, Mrinal Pande, and Shashi Tharoor, a member of Parliament, were charged for “posting tweets and purposefully circulating fake news” during farmers’ rallies in Delhi. A more bizarre misuse of the provision occurred when three Kashmiri students were charged in Agra for allegedly sharing celebratory messages on social media following Pakistan’s T20 victory over India.11
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 124-A of the Indian Panel Code, 1860, could not be used to suppress free speech and could only be invoked if it could be proven that the seditious speech in question incited violence or would cause public disorder. Because Kedar Nath criticised the Congress party rather than the Indian state, and the speech in question did not incite violence, it did not amount to sedition.
The Supreme Court also stated that the presence of a pernicious proclivity to incite violence is required before invoking the sedition clause. The Court upheld the former Federal Court’s interpretation of Section 124-A of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 in [Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs King Empror, 12which ruled strongly in favour of legitimate criticism of the government and against arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression. According to the Federal Court, there must be a public disorder or a reasonable likelihood of public disorder to constitute the offence of sedition.
4. Conclusion
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 appears to be so broad that any attempt to question the functioning of the Indian Government looks to be pointless. This law is draconian in character due to the broad interpretation of this Section and the punishments. It also violates the right to free expression granted by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, making it unlawful. This also contradicts democratic features. Despite substantial progress over the years, this sedition law threatens India’s growth. As a result, India’s sedition legislation was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that this law violates journalists’ rights and livelihood
If the country decides not to repeal the sedition law entirely but only partially, the scope of the Section must be changed in such a way that it cannot be widely interpreted and specifies specific actions that would fall within the ambit of the Section. Individual definitions and the scope of terms and punishments would also greatly reduce the arbitrariness involved in’sedition’ law, so that it does not curtail but only limits freedom of speech and expression.