The word 'Sedition' comes from the Latin word 'seditio', meaning 'going apart'. Sedition,as it means today, was established in the Era of Elizabeth. The laws of sedition were brought in force in the seventeenth century by England. This was done as free speech was considered a threat to the Monarchy. The then lawmakers, in order to make sure that only good opinion of the government is circulated brought introduced sedition laws which were then implemented by the Britishers for the same purpose during their reign in India. This law was used to clamp down voices against the British Empire.
The sedition law in India, as embodied under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, has been a debate and in controversy. While this law was first brought in by the British colonial regime to crush the independence movement and freedom fighters, in independent India, it has been used and misused a number of times against a diverse range of dissenters and oppositions. This paper will establish the constitutional validity of the law of sedition in India, and, more specifically, against Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which allows its citizens the right to free speech and expression. The study explains how the judiciary has strived to balance the need for enforcing the law with the need to protect freedom of speech and expression by looking at landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. The broad, vague language of the sedition law often subjects it to easy misapplication, snuffing out dissent and suppressing legitimate opposition to the government by peaceful and democratic means. This paper argues that a law so pregnant with possibilities for misuse and general chilling of free expressions is beyond redemption in democratic dogmas enshrined in the Constitution. The paper argues that the need and sweep of sedition laws in India should be reviewed by analyzing jurisprudential views and comparative practices in other democracies. The author has requested either legislative amendments or judicial rephrasing to accommodate the constitutional mandates such that this law, while protecting national security, should not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. More than anything, this is a study that highlights the need for a nuanced approach towards protection of the sovereignty of the state and the liberty of its citizens.
Sedition has long been a contentious and debated issue in India, with many arguing that it is often employed to quash dissent and restrict freedom of expression. In India, sedition is classified as a cognizable and non-bailable offense, allowing the police to arrest individuals suspected of sedition without a warrant and detain them without the option of bail. The penalties for sedition can range from imprisonment for up to three years to life imprisonment if the seditious act involves violence. However, the sedition law has sparked significant controversy in India, with many critics arguing that it infringes on the constitutional laws and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Some key arguments against the sedition law include:
- Freedom of Expression: The Indian Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. Critics argue that the sedition law exceeds these reasonable limits, often being used to silence dissent and punish government critics. This is seen as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty: The sedition law permits the arrest and detention of individuals suspected of sedition, which is argued to violate the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Right to a Fair Trial: Since sedition is a non-bailable offense that allows arrests without a warrant, individuals accused of sedition may be detained without the possibility of bail. This situation is viewed as a violation of the right to a fair trial and due process, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
These arguments highlight the tension between the enforcement of sedition laws and the protection of fundamental rights in a democratic society.
Sedition Law in India
Sedition law is a non bailable criminal offence which used to be covered in the recently repealed and replaced Indian Penal Code under section 124-A. It involved inciting discontent or disaffection, in lay man's language, hatred or contempt and public disorder towards the "Government established by law". This law had its roots from the Colonial era and was derived from the English Common Law. First drafted by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837 but was somehow omitted in the Indian Penal Code when it came into force in the year 1860. Later on, this law came into existence in the IPC through an amendment by James Stephen in 1870.
Until recently, the Section 124-A of the IPC reads and defines Sedition as an offence committed when "any person 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 disaffectiontowards the government established by law in India"1. Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section.2
Ever since the time of Independence of India, the law of sedition has been a debatable and controversial concern and many critics feel the need for its abolishment from the IPC due to its relic of colonial era and also see it as a restriction on the Fundamental right of "RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION", granted by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) and has had been misused by ruling parties as a political tool to suppress and prevent people from speaking against them.
An irony to this fact is that, the sedition law has been abolished by many countries who have been a colony of the British and even the United Kingdom has abolished this law in their country, but this law still persists in India, world's largest democracy. trade
Sedition as a violation of Freedom of Speech & Expression under Art. 19(1)(a)?
Initially, the law of sedition was brought by the colonials to suppress the freedom fighters who stood against them, but after Indian independence, the Britishers left our land but the laws formulated by them didn't. The law of sedition has become out of date for today's culture and a mere criticism of the Government cannot amount to Sedition or hate speech. Many leaders from the opposition, youth leaders, revolutionists and journalists have been booked under this offence by the police of various states and it clearly depicts how the authorities in power misuse this law as a means to suppress any form of criticism or incitement of contempt against them and the policies formulated by them which is quite evident that it is a significant restriction on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and puts forth a question on the "democratic status of India".
The law of sedition was held to be unconstitutional for the first time in the year 1961, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of "Tara Chand Singh vs State"3, citing that this law violated the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19, followed by the Allahabad High Court in "Ram Nandan vs State of Uttar Pradesh"4 , which further moved to the Supreme Court finally held the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 as unconstitutional.
A few years later the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again got the opportunity to consider the constitutional validity in the Landmark case of "Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar"5, in which Kedarnath Singh, the appellant, who was a member of the Forward Communist Party in Bihar and was booked under Section 124-A and 505 of the IPC and he appealed to the Apex Court on whether the law of sedition was ultra vires with the Article 19(1)(a) read along with clause (2) of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled all the previously held preceding of the High Courts and held that Sedition law, under s. 124-A is constitutionally valid unless it intends to excite discontent and public disorder against the Government established by the law and defended the security of the State and maintenance of law and order which are basic considerations and should be taken care of and also said that Art. 19 provided by the Constitution of India is a sine qua non and should not be ignored and fully protected but to which there should be some restrictions put for the safety and sovereignty of the nation and integrity of the State and held that ss 124-A is intra vires, ie, within the legal power of the Constitution considering Art. 19(1)(a) and (2) and hence, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo punishment.
The idea of freedom of speech emerges from the liberal idea that there should be a space where the individual is free from social coercion. There are no clear and consistent guidelines on when sedition charges can be brought. It is noticed that although very few sedition cases have resulted in actual convictions, it has resulted in the harassment of individuals prior to conviction, which in some cases took many years. In most cases, the charges are rarely established, but the process itself becomes a punishment. The lack of consistency in the ruling has led to inconsistencies in the area of free speech rights and opened the door for local officials and interest groups to continue to use the law to harass and intimidate unwanted dissidents. "If the freedom of expression is taken away from us, we will become silent, just like slaughtered sheep."6
After the case of Kedarnath Singh (supra), many activists and journalists stood against the ruling of the SC and argued that the judgement is vague and amenable to arbitrary use. And many journalists and youth activists were booked under s. 124-A of the IPC such as in the case of "Vinod Dua vs Union Of India"7, "Disha Ravi vs State of Delhi"8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court observed that sedition cannot be imposed on the grounds of mere criticism of the government and every person has the right to express their views freely.
Presently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order referring the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sedition law under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, noted that the judgement in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), which had upheld the provisions of Section 124-A didn't consider the aspect of article 14 of the constitution. The court has cited,
"There was no challenge on the ground that Section 124A violated Article 14 nor did the Constitution Bench have occasion to consider the validity of the provision against a constitutional challenge on the basis of Article 14. The position as it has evolved in constitutional jurisprudence is that the fundamental rights do not exist in silos. There is, in other words, a coalescence of several of the rights protected by Part III. Article 14, which presents an overarching principle of reasonableness permeates Articles 19 and 21 as well."9
Conclusion
Through the above discussion and different facts, we need to understand that India being a multi-ethnic country and world's biggest democracy, every citizen has the right to express their views freely and denying them their right to express would take away the essence of democracy. But, it should also be taken into consideration that every right should be exercised with due caution and should not be misused when it comes to National Security. The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the makers of the Constitution to each and everyone of us has been a blessing to all of us but it should not be misused in order to create public disorder and disaffection towards the State and should not intend to excite violence and hatred in people towards the government established by law. Sedition law has its influence from the Colonial Common law and was misused utterly by the British to suppress freedom stalwarts like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Gandhi and others who stood against the British Raj and criticized their policies and demanded a free democratic and sovereign Independent India. The central as well as the State governments have always used this law of sedition under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code as a shield against them and prevented any activity that posed a threat to them and invoked hatred or discontent towards them. Even today, after almost 78 years of our Independence we still struggle to abolish this law completely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also asked the government to put an end to this and stresses on the fact that mere criticism of the government does not amount to sedition.
The central government in its recent proposal for the amendment and introduction of the three new criminal law in India through which it has replaced the 150 year old IPC with the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita which doesn't mention Sedition as a criminal offence but on the contrary, in the section 150 of the same the there is a new provision with a wider definition of the offence. The new code has also recognised separatist activities, which could mean that more acts would be liable to be punished under the new law, which earlier would not directly challenging the government.
Footnotes
1 Indian Penal Code,1860: Bare Act
2 See K.D Gaur's, Indian Penal Code, 2020
3 Tara Singh and Ors v State of Punjab, 1951 AIR 441, 1951 SCR 729, Cri LJ 449
4 Ram Nandan vs State of Uttar Pradesh,1959 AIR 1959 All 101, 1959 Cri LJ 1
5 Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
6 Critical Analysis of the Sedition Law in India: With Freedom of Speech, Legal essay, Abhineet Upadhyay, 2023, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities.
7 Vinod Dua vs Union of India, AIR 2021 SC 414
8 Disha Ravi vs State of Delhi, 2021
9 Livelaw.in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
