SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA

TOPIC - SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA

Author – Tanya Sharma, a student of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

Introduction:

Sedition simply means to encourage people to oppose the government or authority. When a person promotes hatred towards the government which results in people creating public disorder or violence is sedition. There are different ways of sedition:

1. Words (spoken or written)

2. Visual representations such as signs, videos, pictures or cartoons. 

Indian laws on sedition

Pre-Constitutional Era

Before the Constitution, Section 124A was used to forcibly put an end to any political argument even if it’s right. Under the sedition provision, the British Government tortured many nationalist politicians, journalists and press owners as well as writers and poets.

In the case of Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Tilak was accused of sedition for publishing an article in the newspaper about the Maratha warrior Shivaji encouraging his move against the British Government. Interpretation of ‘disaffection’ was given through this case. 

Disaffection means hatred, dislike, hostility, contempt and every form of ill will to the government. ‘Disloyalty’ can be the most related term collecting every possible form of bad feelings for the government. 

The judgement of the case leads to the 1989 amendment to Section 124A of IPC and the interpretation gave disloyalty and feelings of enmity to sedition.

Post- independence era

Any words or actions used against the government which do not threaten the security of the state and people or doesn’t lead to any sort of public disorder would not fall under Section 124A of IPC.

Constitutionality of Sedition laws

Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh was the first case to attack the constitutionality of Section 124A of IPC. Freedom of speech and expression is the soul of our constitution and Section 124A violates that. The Allahabad High Court held that it is beyond the legal authority of the Section to restrict freedom of speech and expression. 

Kedar Nath Singh v. the State of Bihar challenged the constitutionality of Section 124A, the judgement of the case Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh was overruled through this case. The Court held that there must be boundaries to the Section, as only acts which tend to cause public disorder or violence should fall under the Section and the Court also distinguished between ‘The Government established by law’ and ‘the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration’. 

Section for sedition under IPC:

Section 124A:

“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 India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

Explanation 1 – The expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2 – Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3 – Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. 

In the case of Balwant Singh v. the State of Punjab, the Court held that criticism through raising slogans once or twice by individuals cannot excite or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the government. 

Some judgements on sedition law in India

Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021): Farooq Abdullah’s Article 370 comment

The Supreme Court of India while deciding on the present case of Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021) imposed a cost of Rs.50, 000 on petitioners for filing a “publicity interest litigation”. The bench went ahead to observe that it is not possible to call, expressing a point of view that differs from a decision made by the Central Government, as seditious. There was nothing in the statement that the Apex Court considers insulting enough to justify a court’s proceedings to be initiated.

Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam (2021)

Ms Rajina Parbin Sultana, the petitioner, has been detained since May 16, 2021, under Sections 120B and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. Court held that it did not appear to be an act with the intent of overthrowing the government by inciting scorn, hate, or disaffection against it.

Why in news recently?

According to Section 150 of the new code, citizens can be proceeded against for words, gestures, actions, etc., which endanger the “sovereignty, unity and integrity of India,” in place of the IPC provision against creating disaffection against “the government established by law,

The court has said that it was not examining the provision under the new code because it is not yet the law. It said the five-judge bench would re-examine the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh judgement which upheld Section 124A but limited its applicability. Significantly, the court said the new bench would evaluate the judgement in light of the right to life (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14) and the advancements made in recognising and evolving new rights since 1962. So, it is clear that
the court proposes to examine sedition in the context of citizens’ rights. It will hopefully lead to the end of the sedition law in any guise which can be misused by the government.