Date: 10/01/2023

Relevance: GS-2: Indian Constitution—significant provisions and basic structure; Judicial review, functioning of the Judiciary.

Key Phrases: Sedition Law, Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, Supreme Court judgements, Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case.

Context

• The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions challenging the colonial-era penal law on sedition.

Background

• Last year the SC had put the penal law on sedition in abeyance till an “appropriate” government forum re-examined it.
• It had also directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking the offense.
• The top court had in 1962 upheld the validity of the law while attempting to restrict its scope for misuse.
• Recent cases of frequently putting charges of sedition [Under 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.
  • As the governments over the years have misused the law to put reasonable restrictions on free speech as provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Relevant Supreme Court judgements related to Sedition

• Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case (1962)
  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
  • While dealing with offenses laid down some guiding principles.
  • The court ruled that comments-however strongly worded-expressing disapprobation of the actions of the government without causing public disorder by acts of violence would not attract penal actions.
• P. Alavi vs State of Kerala (1982) case
  • The court held that sloganeering, criticism of parliament or judicial set up didn’t amount to sedition.
• Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995) case
  • The SC held that merely shouting slogans, (in this case Khalistan Zindabad), does not amount to sedition.
  • And thus, declared that ‘the sedition law is being both misunderstood and misused to muzzle dissent’.

Criticism of the Sedition law

• The sedition law became obsolete in the UK in the 1960s and was repealed in 2009.
  • The opponents of the law argue that when the country which imposed the law on India has already repealed the given law then why India is continuing with it.
• Singapore too like India inherited the Sedition law from Britain but it repealed it stating that a set of new laws can sufficiently address issues that were under the ambit of the sedition law.

Need of a relook into the law

• According to an estimate the number of cases of sedition under Section 124A increased by 140% from 2016 to 2019.
• The rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33.3% in 2016.
• In the Internet age, what can lead to public disorder has itself become debatable, as information travels at lightning speed.
• The U.K. repealed the offense of sedition in 2010 and India is holding onto a relic of the British Empire.
• As recently as 2018, the Law Commission of India too questioned the justification of retaining the Section 124A.
• The provision examines the effects of the seditious text rather than a content-based test which reviews the text alone which seems to be flawed.

Concerns with Sedition provisions

• Against the spirit of the constitution
  • Criticism of a Government is not the same as exciting “disaffection towards the Government” or inciting rebellion against it.
  • It is a medium to put constraints on the freedom of speech and expression of citizens.
• Not in line with globally accepted practices
  • India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which increases India’s liability towards protection of freedom of expression.
• Against civil liberties
  • Suppresses what every citizen ought to do in a democracy- raise questions, debate, disagree and challenge the government’s decisions.
  • The draconian nature of this law as the crime is non-bailable, non-cognizable and punishment can extend for life—it has a strong deterrent effect on dissent even if it is not used.
• Retention is not justified and prone to misuse
  • The Law Commission of India, in its consultation paper published that while retaining the offense of sedition was essential to protect national integrity.
  • Terms used under Section 124A like ‘disaffection’ are vague and subject to different interpretations to the whims and fancies of the investigating officers.

Way forward

• The Kedar Nath guidelines principles of the SC must be incorporated in Section 124A as well by amendment to IPC so that any ambiguity must be removed.
• Only those actions/words that directly result in the use of violence or incitement to violence should be termed seditious.
• The state police must be sufficiently guided as to where the section must be imposed and where it must not.
• Need to include provisions where the government can be penalized, if it misuses the section.
• This will ensure that section 124 A of IPC strikes a balance between security and smooth functioning of the state with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. Although provision of sedition is against the spirit of the constitution, it has helped to maintain the integrity and sovereignty of the nation, elucidate. Is it advisable to revoke the sedition provisions of the IPC which are used to suppress democratic voices? (250 words).