The Supreme Court of India recently granted protection to a political leader and six journalists, preventing their arrest under multiple cases of sedition. Sedition, a term that dates back to 17th century England, has been a contentious issue in India’s legal circle for years. The following report delves into its historical background, current implications, landmark judgements and the arguments for and against this law.
Historical Background of Sedition Law
Sedition laws were initially introduced in 17th century England for suppressing dissenting or harmful opinions about the government or monarchy. Thomas Macaulay, a British historian-politician, first drafted the law in 1837. However, it was omitted when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) came into effect in 1860. An amendment introducing Section 124A was made in 1870 by Sir James Stephen to address specific offences.
Sedition Law Today
Today, sedition is considered a crime under Section 124A of the IPC. The law defines sedition as any attempt, through words, signs or representations, to incite disloyalty, hatred or contempt towards the legally established government in India. Nevertheless, comments that do not incite hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute an offence under this section.
Punishment for the Offence of Sedition
Sedition is a non-bailable offence, with punishments ranging from three years imprisonment to a life term, often complemented by fines. Those charged under this law are prohibited from holding a government job and must surrender their passport and regularly appear in court.
Major Supreme Court Decisions on Sedition Law
Over the years, the Supreme Court has had numerous occasions to rule on cases related to sedition. Significant cases include Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras in 1950 where the court deemed laws restricting speech on grounds of disturbing public order as unconstitutional. Later, in the Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case in 1962, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but restricted its application only to instances inciting violence or causing law and order disruption.
Arguments in Support of Section 124A
Those in favor of Section 124A argue that it is crucial for combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements. They assert that punishments for contempt of court should also extend to contempt of government, especially as many districts across numerous states face Maoist insurgency and rebellion.
Arguments against Section 124A
On the other hand, critics of Section 124A highlight that the law restricts the legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and expression, essential for robust public debate in a democratic society. They argue that questioning, criticizing and challenging rulers are fundamental to democracy. The vague terminology used in this law, such as ‘disaffection,’ opens possibilities for misuse by investigating officers. The provisions under IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2019 for penalising those disrupting public order or attempting to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means are deemed sufficient without Section 124A.
Way Forward
In India, as the world’s largest democracy, the right to free speech is paramount. Disagreements or disapproval towards government policy should not be misconstrued as sedition. The definition of sedition needs refinement to focus only on issues undermining India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Any misuse of this law can be checked by the Supreme Court’s guidelines given in the Kedar Nath case. It is crucial that the police and magistracy remain sensitive to constitutional provisions protecting free speech. While the term ‘sedition’ is nuanced and warrants cautious application, it, much like a cannon, remains an important part of the arsenal for maintaining law and order.
