Sedition Law

The invocation of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, provides a stark reminder of the sheer depravity of some of our antiquated, colonial-era laws. Latest being the arrest of Student Union president of JNU and a former DU lecturer.

Sedition

Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 pertains to sedition. This section apparently negates the right to dissent, which is an essential condition of any democratic government to survive. Section 124-A is intrinsically draconian, which defines sedition in wide, expansive terms, and punishes the act with imprisonment for life so as to suppress all kinds of opposition.

It defines sedition as any action - whether by words, signs or visible representation - which "brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India".
Historically, the vagueness in definition certainly helped the colonialists. Most infamously in the trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. During the course of the British rule, there was a general consensus that Section 124-A was intended to indict any speech that questioned the moral superiority of government and which harboured any sentiments of ill feeling towards the state.

A weapon to crush opposition

In the decades since Kedar Nath case, Indian free speech jurisprudence has gone through substantial change. The court has proceeded towards a practical theory that distinguishes advocacy and incitement. In 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, in declaring unconstitutional the notorious Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the court ruled that speech howsoever offensive, annoying or inconvenient cannot be prosecuted unless its utterance has some connection with any incitement to disrupt public order.

However, in spite of the Supreme Court narrowing the scope of sedition, and in spite of the more recently evolved tests to determine when mere speech or expression can be prosecuted, governments have routinely invoked Section 124-A with a view to restricting even benign forms of dissent.

Jurisprudence of free speech in India

Question of repealing or striking down on the grounds that they violate Article 19(1)(a)-

Most of these laws have, in fact, been challenged and their constitutional validity has already been upheld
Section 295A ("deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs") was found to be constitutional
Section 124A (sedition) was held to be constitutional in the Kedarnath case (1962)

To protect free speech

Need to focus on procedural reforms and safeguards ( rendering the malicious use of these laws more difficult )

All speech-related offences should be made bailable offences- To lessen the harmful impact of using arrest and custody as a way of harassing anyone exercising their rights under Article 19(1)(a))
The offences should be made non-cognisable- A judicial check on the police acting on the basis of politically motivated complaints be maintained
The case of hate speech- Important to raise the burden of proof on those who claim that their sentiments are hurt rather than accept them at face value
Strict Action to be taken against those who bring malicious complaints against speech acts

Supporting 124A

Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily sedition. This section would apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order (Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar).
The court rightly observed that sometimes the arrest of individuals, rather than the slogans shouted, could lead to tension and a law and order problem and cautioned that over-sensitiveness could be counter-productive.
The present section has stood the test of time and the courts have restricted its application to serious acts that incite violence or create a major law and order problem.
There is no data on the number of complaints that have been filed under this section in different states. Without an analysis of the empirical evidence on the implementation of this section, it would be perilous to abolish it as an anachronistic colonial provision.