Introduction of Sedition Law
The sedition law in India, codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has been a subject of intense debate regarding its impact on freedom of speech. The law, which dates back to the colonial era, was designed to curb dissent against the British government. However, its application in contemporary India has raised significant concerns about its compatibility with democratic values and constitutional guarantees of free expression.
The Sedition law in India dates back to the British era when sedition law was incorporated as a tool to crack down on rebellions against the government. Sedition in layman’s terms means inciting people to rebel against authority, and sedition law in India has been legislated, to incorporate this basic idea. Throughout, its history sedition law has been used by the State both pre- and post-independence to suppress the voice of citizens who had been raising issues against the same. The courts thus had to play an active role, so that this act of the executive and the legislature had minimum effect, at least in practicality.
Even before the Independence with whatever autonomy the British legal system used to function it had tried to address certain issues with respect to the Sedition law in undivided India. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar and Ors. vs. Emperor, the court had taken a reasonable view with respect to sedition and held that sedition would mean that there would be an act of lawlessness done by the accused at some point. So, if there is no act regarding this, there could be no offense under sedition. Similarly, courts also played an active role even after the Independence, and even recently, the Supreme Court has been taking active steps to render the Sedition Law unconstitutional. This all has shown that active steps are being taken to make this law invalid as both the government and the courts have recognized the issues with respect to the sedition law in the country and thus are working in the right direction, or so it seems.
Key Highlights
1. Historical Context:
Section 124A of the IPC defines sedition as any action, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. The punishment for sedition can range from three years in prison to a life sentence, along with a fine.
The sedition law’s origins can be traced back to the British colonial period when it was employed to quash dissent against colonial rule. Its inception can be dated to the 1830s when efforts to codify laws for India began. Notably, the draft Indian Penal Code of 1837, spearheaded by Thomas Babington Macaulay, contained a section akin to the present Section 124A, prescribing life imprisonment as punishment.
However, this sedition law was not enacted until 1870, when it was introduced through an amendment act by James Fitzjames Stephen, who served as the Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council. The law’s historical legacy has sparked debates and controversies, with many advocating for its reassessment in alignment with democratic principles and the protection of freedom of speech and expression in contemporary India.
An artist’s impression of Bala Ganghadhar Tilak’s second trial for sedition case being argued at the Bombay High Court in 1908. Tilak was sentenced to six years of transportation. (Circa 1908). From The Hindu Archives.
2. Legal Framework
The constitutionality of the sedition law has been challenged multiple times. The landmark case in this regard is Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), where the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law but significantly narrowed its scope. The Court ruled that only those acts that involve incitement to violence or have the tendency or intention to create public disorder can be considered seditious. Mere criticism of the government, without incitement to violence, does not constitute sedition.
In Kedarnath v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of sedition law by saying that the difference between state and government cannot be established, with respect to this section, as an offense against the government would be considered offence against the state, as the government is a visible symbol of the state. Also, under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, certain reasonable restrictions can be provided for national security of the state. Section 505 of the IPC was also held to be valid in this case, where offences against the state are explicitly mentioned. So, even the Supreme Court has earlier upheld the validity of Sedition laws, which has been mentioned by the 279th Law Commission Report which was released by the Government of India.
Despite these judicial safeguards, the law has often been misused. Critics argue that it has become a tool for the government to stifle dissent and suppress freedom of speech. High-profile cases involving journalists, activists, and even students have highlighted the law’s potential for abuse.
3. Impact on Freedom of Speech :
a) Chilling Effect on Expression: The threat of being charged with sedition creates a chilling effect on free speech. Individuals and media organizations may practice self-censorship to avoid potential legal consequences.
b) Suppression of Dissent: The application of the sedition law has often been criticized for targeting political opponents and dissenters. This undermines the democratic principle that citizens should be able to criticize their government without fear of retribution.
c) Legal Harassment and Intimidation: The lengthy legal processes and the stigma associated with being accused of sedition can serve as a form of harassment and intimidation, deterring individuals from voicing their opinions.
d) Impact on Media Freedom: Journalists and media houses, tasked with holding the government accountable, are particularly vulnerable. Sedition charges can undermine investigative journalism and restrict the free flow of information.
4. Call for Reform and Abolition
There has been a growing demand for either the reform or abolition of the sedition law. The recent developments we see around sedition law are referring the matter by the Supreme Court to a larger bench, and the introduction of a refreshed version of the Penal Codes before the parliament. The introduction of the new bill, which removes the heading of sedition has also received criticism, since under the proposed law, Section 150, has a similar provision, and some have said it to be even more draconian. The new section has encompassed even Financial Means for tracking any act which is done against the State. The new code has also Recognized separatist activities, which could mean that more acts would be liable to be punished under the new law, which earlier would not directly challenge the government.
The major criticism, which was sedition was incitement against the government seems to be removed here, as the Section clearly mentions India, i.e., the State. This could be good or bad, depending upon the lens through which it is seen. It might be bad as the scope of seditious acts has been extended, as mentioned earlier, that the State is a wider term. But there could be situations where acts against a particular government could not be simply construed as acts against India. The essential aspect under this act is any act done against ‘India’ which would have to be proved in a court
5. Conclusion:
The sedition law in India, while intended to maintain public order, has had a profound and often negative impact on freedom of speech. Its misuse as a tool to suppress dissent poses a significant threat to democratic discourse. There is an urgent need for legislative and judicial reforms to ensure that the law is not used to undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Balancing national security concerns with the protection of free speech is crucial for the healthy functioning of a democracy.
The question becomes to what degree a person’s freedom of speech and expression has to be curtailed to achieve this because at the end of the day, a balance would need to be achieved for the proper functioning of the country. The recent developments including the law commission’s report, the active participation of the Supreme Court, and the proposed bill, are definitely a step in the right direction, but whether are they enough will be the question that would need to be asked. The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting and balancing the right to freedom of speech and expression with the need to maintain national security and public order. Legal challenges and ongoing debates continue to shape the interpretation and application of these laws in India.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
