There are growing instances to show that this law has been weaponised as a handy tool against political rivals, to suppress dissent and free speech.
While questioning the continuity of the “colonial-era” sedition law on 15 July, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana expressed his concern over its misuse. He said, “The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself.” His statement and several recent judgments of the highest court have sparked a rousing debate around sedition law and its widespread (mis)use by state authorities.
Sedition as per Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) reads as, “whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in
The sedition law was used by the British to suppress dissent and imprison freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak who criticised the policies of the colonial administration. After Independence, the constitution framers had devoted considerable time to weigh in on various aspects of this colonial law. One of the most vehement critics of the sedition law was K.M. Munshi who argued that such a draconian law is a threat to democracy in India. He argued that, “as a matter of fact the essence of democracy is criticism of Government.” It was due to his efforts and the persistence of the Sikh leader Bhupinder Singh Mann that the word sedition was omitted from the Constitution.
However, this law was reimposed by the very controversial First Amendment that was passed by the government headed by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. While introducing the first amendment to the Constitution in 1951, Nehru had stated that, “Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section (124A IPC) is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” However, he dithered on this as his government not only reimposed the sedition law through the first amendment in 1951 but also strengthened it by adding two expressions — “friendly relations with foreign state” and “public order” — as grounds for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on free speech.
As per the Kedar Nath judgment in 1962, the sedition law was supposed to be applied in rare instances where the security and sovereignty of the country is threatened. However, there are growing instances to show that this law has been weaponised as a handy tool against political rivals, to suppress dissent and free speech. As per the latest data presented by Article 14, as many as 25 sedition cases were filed after the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, 22 after the Hathras gang rape, and 27 after the Pulwama incident. In all, 96 percent of the sedition cases filed against 405 Indians over the last decade were registered after 2014.
Further, the data provided by National Crime Records Bureau indicates that sedition cases have risen from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019, a massive 163 percent jump. However, the conversion rate from cases to conviction is a mere 3 percent. This shows that the police and related state authorities are using the sedition laws indiscriminately to create fear amongst the citizens and silence any criticisms or dissent against the regime.
Legally speaking, one of the main problems with the sedition law is that it is poorly defined. The terms “bring into hatred or contempt” or “attempt to excite disaffection” can be interpreted in many ways and this empowers the police and government to harass innocent citizens who are across the fence from them. Due to its poor definition, sedition law can be used spuriously by the police to falsely accuse individuals as it does not clearly state which acts are seditious and provides a broad outline of what can be classified as seditious. This issue was recently highlighted by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while restraining the Andhra Pradesh government from taking adverse action against two Telugu news channels booked under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Chandrachud remarked, “Everything cannot be seditious. It is time we define what is sedition and what is not.” In another important case (PIL filed against Farooq Abdullah, the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir), Justice Chandrachud stated, “Expression of views which is dissent and different from the opinion of the government cannot be termed seditious.” Similarly, Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Disha Ravi case clearly stated that the government cannot put citizens “behind bars simply because they chose to disagree with the state policies” and “the offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments.” These rulings by the judiciary clearly diverge from the interpretation of the sedition law by the executive and show how the law is being indiscriminately misused by them.
Freedom of speech and expression is the hallmark of a democracy that is being compromised due to the sedition law. A democracy requires citizens to actively participate in debates and express their constructive criticisms of government policies. However, the sedition laws have empowered the executive branch of the government to use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power. The sedition law has become a tool to instill a sense of compliance towards government policies in the citizens. There have been many instances where the government has used the sedition law to suppress protesting voices to protect its interests. The arrests of the NDTV journalist Vinod Dua for criticising the government’s response to COVID-19 and the 22-year-old Disha Ravi in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case for tweeting in solidarity with the farmer’s agitation in India has raised many questions about freedom of speech and expression in India. When journalists are censored through the sedition law, it impacts democracy. The sedition laws reduce government accountability as the government is able to ignore its critics and in turn charge them with sedition.
Yet, what is more concerning is once arrested under the sedition law, it is extremely difficult to get bails as the trial process can be stretched for long. This leads to harassment of innocent people and induces a fear in others to speak against the government. The cases of the Kashmiri students in Hubli is an example of the difficulty of getting bail in a sedition case as they got default bail after 100 days of police custody.
To conclude, sedition laws and their growing misuse by governments of all stripes (including opposition-ruled states) are a matter of serious concern. Personal liberty and the right to free speech are hallmarks of liberal democracy and sedition laws and their gross misuse attack the very foundation of these liberties enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The need of the hour requires the judiciary to review this draconian law. Even if abolishing this law may not be feasible, toning it down and issuing strict guidelines to limit its indiscriminate use can definitely help India’s democratic standing apart from safeguarding freedom of expression in the country.
Meher Manga is Research Intern at ORF.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
