The constitution makers granted every citizen of this nation few fundamental rights, freedom of speech and expression is one of them. But they also defined the boundaries within with one can express his view freely. Sedition Law has not emerged recently, it has been a law since colonial time. Many intellectuals like Gandhi and Tilak used their written works to spread nationalism and it seemed a danger to the colonial rule of British in India, as an effect they enacted this law in 1870 to curb the growing nationalism. The initial case were prosecution of editors of nationalist newspapers. Some of the victims of it were Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Mahatama Gandhi.
Mahatama Gandhi who was prosecuted in 1922 on sedition charge then said “Section 124 A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of citizen.”
Now since it was already in force during the time constitution of India being drafted then how come well-renowned lawyers and constitution makers didn’t put it down. In the draft constitution, constitution makers included ‘sedition’ as a basis on which law could be framed limiting fundamental right to speech (Article 13). In final draft, this word was removed from the exceptions of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 (2)). The action of drafting committee was criticized by a large number of people and in response K.M.Munshi one of the member of drafting committee said.
I was pointing out that the word ‘sedition’ has been a word of varying import and has created considerable doubt in the minds of not only the members of this House but of Courts of Law all over the world. Its definition has been very simple and given so far back in 1868. It says “sedition embraces all those practices whether by word or deed or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant persons to subvert the Government”. But in practice it has had a curious fortune. A hundred and fifty years ago in England, holding a meeting or conducting a procession was considered sedition. Even holding an opinion against, which will bring ill-will towards Government, was considered sedition once. Our notorious Section 124-A of Penal Code was sometimes construed so widely that I remember in a case a criticism of a District Magistrate was urged to be covered by Section 124-A. But the public opinion has changed considerably since and now that we have a democratic Government a line must be drawn between criticism of Government which should be welcome and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which civilized life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State.Therefore, the word ‘sedition’ has been omitted. As a matter of fact the essence of democracy is Criticism of Government. The party system which necessarily involves an advocacy of the replacement of one Government by another is its only bulwark; the advocacy of a different system of Government should be welcome because that gives vitality to a democracy. The object therefore of this amendment is to make a distinction between the two positions.
So this is how, Article 124 A of IPC remained in our law system. With the passage of time, many different case of sedition appeared before the supreme court and slowly the definition of sedition changed and more freedom and relaxation is given. The supreme court in its one of the case maintained that “A citizen has right to say or write whatever he likes about the Govt., or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Govt. established by laws or with the intention of creating public disorder.“
Now when the Supreme Court already laid down that the provision of Section 124 A of IPC are only made out where is a tendency to public disorder by use of violence or incitement to violence then how is it that so many FIRs continue to be filed against media person and other for their speeches and writings?
Sedition charges against Arundhati Roy, Binayek Sen, Aseem Trivedi who have merely exercised their fundamental right to freedom of expression have attracted draconian colonial legacy. The law sedition is being used to curb any sort of political dissent in the country, and any other philosophy which goes against the ruling party’s mindset. You can point me that finally all such convicts are released by court order, but actually this has created a deterrence effect and even they are freed ultimately, they have gone long legal process which make citizen now fear voicing against govt. policies.
The another thing to notice is that, this offense has been included in the section on “Offenses against the state” as opposed to offenses like “rioting” and “unlawful assembly” that are included in “Offence against Public Tranquility”.Section 153 A (promoting enmity between religious groups) and Section 153 B (imputations prejudicial to national integration) have an imprisonment of the maximum of three years. So any other like offenses in IPC do not have as harsh punishment as Section 124 A of IPC have, which clearly tells that the main objective of this law is to stem those who go against the philosophy of govt.
Recently in news, Hardik Patel is charged with sedition based on a video clip in which he is seen as saying “Kill 3-4 Policemen instead of killing yourself” to a patel youth who tried suicide. In this case, he is clearly inciting people to wage a war and violence so here sedition charge against him seems to be valid. But if you look in the laws, there are other laws such as ‘rioting’, ‘waging war’, ‘inciting violence’ in IPC which should have been charged against him. Prosecution of him on sedition law all of the sudden got a great support from people who were up til now against Sedition Law. They are saying what is done is right. It is like stepping in two boats together, one side people were stigmatizing Article 124 A and after this recent occurrence, they started to support the decision.
Let me give you an example here,
Some shopkeeper are deliberately mixing poisonous substance in the food they sell. Radha comes to know about it and she opposed it. But they are still doing it. One morning news comes to her that one of her top rivals is dead consuming such food. Now she feel happy and literally clap for it, but in doing so she forget that it may happen to her as well in future. A poisonous substance in food is just unacceptable. She should not try to support or cover such acts by shopkeepers. Same is here, Shopkeeper – Govt., A Poisonous Substance – Sedition Law, Top Rival – Hardik Patel. Radha – Citizens.
I agree that the case with Arundhati Roy and Aseem Trivedi were very different from the one of Hardik Patel, but since after lots of research many intellectuals came to decisions to repeal Sedition Law and I think we must stick to that. I think it was just one good case of Sedition while before it, there were tens of unjust case. So, the majority is of misuse of sedition and so it must be repealed.
In democratic society, everyone have the right to express his view unless he incites violence. So the existence of sedition law which is actually criminalizing mere critics is just unacceptable. The use of these laws to harass and intimidate media personnel, human rights activists, political activists, artists, and public intellectuals despite a Supreme Court ruling narrowing its application, shows that the very existence of sedition laws on the statute books is a threat to democratic values.
References :
The Indian Gene 