<p>The sedition law was introduced in 1870 to combat the “increase in Wahhabi activity” in India as it challenged the British colonial government. The sedition law has always been one of the most controversial issues of legal jurisprudence in India. Various views ranging from calling for the complete abolition of it from our statutes to those advocating that the law be upheld are expressed. Many others have called for maintaining the provision but keeping its implementation within defined legal limits to strike a balance between national security and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court recently gave its opinion that these laws may be re-examined. The original Constitution adopted in 1950 did not recognise sedition law and tried to give the right to free speech with full protection in the chapter on fundamental rights. The first amendment in 1951 introduced an exception and some restrictions that gave legality and validity to the sedition law. The sedition law, defined under Section 124A of the IPC, 1860, is much feared and aristocratic in nature.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Understanding the law</strong></p>.<p>Exciting disaffection towards the government always attracts the sedition law in India. Criticism is the culture of any democratic state. And whenever the government uses any law as a tool or weapon for the sake of self-benefit or for continuing in power and uses such tools against the Opposition or an individual, it ultimately undermines the democratic structure envisaged by the Constitution of any democratic country. Justice Chandrachud, while hearing the sedition matter, said that “expression of dissatisfaction against any government ought to be allowed as it functions in the same way as safety valves work in a pressure cooker to ease out the pressure”.</p>.<p>“Merely criticising government rule or any law cannot be called sedition unless it has the potential to encourage people to be violent and show anger. Right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is as valuable as the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution”. The use of any words or actions to encourage people to be or act against a government is sedition in any law. Depending on this, courts have leaned towards saying that in the absence of violence, sedition law cannot be invoked.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>The history</strong></p>.<p>In British India, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were charged under sedition law for writing against the colonial government. In 1897, Tilak was the first Indian political personality to be prosecuted under the draconian sedition law three times in a row. He was imprisoned for up to six years for “seditious” speeches and writings in the newspaper <span class="italic">Kesari</span>, which gave birth to hatred against colonial rule. Based on the Kedar Nath judgement in 1962, it was said that the citizen enjoys the right of criticism against any government without any intention to incite violence.</p>.<p>Dhiren Sadokpam and Paojel Chaoba were arrested under the sedition law and the UAPA for publishing an article “Revolutionary journey in a mess” in a newspaper in Manipur. The author, M Joy Luwang, was also arrested later. Shashi Tharoor was booked for his tweet when a farmer had died in police firing. In May 2020, Dhaval Patel, owner of a Gujarati news portal, was booked for sedition for publishing a report suggesting that the leadership of a state would change and was also booked under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA). After four months, the Gujarat High Court quashed the matter.</p>.<p>Various other cases of sedition were registered against politician Praveen Togadia, doctor Binayak Sen, writer Arundhati Roy, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, Hardik Patel, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Space for dissent</strong></p>.<p>The polarity of the nation and citizens brings out how in democratic India, where the state has limited avenues to exercise complete power, individual liberties of the citizen are considered a threat and autocratic. Laws designed to deal with extraordinary circumstances, just like the sedition law and therefore the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, are used instead to create a narrative around state power. Expressions of dissent are not any longer being understood as an exercise of democratic rights, and are instead considered threats to the state. Terming their citizens ‘urban Naxals’ or ‘anti-national’, and that they belong to an invisible Naxal-intelligentsia-media- academia-NGO-activist nexus seeking to threaten the state, may be a means of coercing other citizens into silence, because the idea of the anti-national citizen gains prominence in India. Greater research must be conducted on how nationalism is being used to stifle various sorts of dissent, not just through laws but the facility of popular opinion. In a world where freedom from fear is sanctioned as a world right, one must question the necessity for a law like sedition that seeks to send shivers down the spines of citizens.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Data and Court’s view</strong></p>.<p>Before the amendment to Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the Punjab High Court held that sedition was incompatible with free speech in a democratic republic, and struck it down as unconstitutional. Ram Nandan questioned the validity of the sedition law and his conviction by the judicature at the Allahabad High court. The court declared it to be unconstitutional and overturned his conviction for a speech.</p>.<p>Law Commission Chairman B S Chauhan (Retd) had recommended repealing or a rethink on the sedition law prevailing in India. He further said that “expressing of dissatisfaction with the current condition of affairs cannot be considered sedition”. According to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2014, a total of 47 cases, 30 cases in 2015, 35 in 2016, 51 in 2017, and 70 cases in 2018, were registered under the sedition law. So far, 816 cases of sedition were registered since 2010 and 3,762 individuals were charged with sedition. The highest number of cases registered under sedition law was in Bihar (168), Tamil Nadu (139), Uttar Pradesh (115), Jharkhand (62) and Karnataka (50).</p>.<p>The law cannot be misused as a tool to curb free speech. It must be understood that criticising or being disloyal to the government is not disloyalty against the nation. But nowadays, the government is using it to suppress the truthful voice of the activist, journalist, politician, student or even the citizen.</p>.<p>The fundamental right of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ is misunderstood because it does not restrain a citizen from criticising a political statement provided it does not incite or hurt the emotions of people against the state.</p>.<p><span class="italic">(<em>The writer is a law student, Central University of Allahabad</em>)</span></p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
<p>The sedition law was introduced in 1870 to combat the “increase in Wahhabi activity” in India as it challenged the British colonial government. The sedition law has always been one of the most controversial issues of legal jurisprudence in India. Various views ranging from calling for the complete abolition of it from our statutes to those advocating that the law be upheld are expressed. Many others have called for maintaining the provision but keeping its implementation within defined legal limits to strike a balance between national security and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court recently gave its opinion that these laws may be re-examined. The original Constitution adopted in 1950 did not recognise sedition law and tried to give the right to free speech with full protection in the chapter on fundamental rights. The first amendment in 1951 introduced an exception and some restrictions that gave legality and validity to the sedition law. The sedition law, defined under Section 124A of the IPC, 1860, is much feared and aristocratic in nature.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Understanding the law</strong></p>.<p>Exciting disaffection towards the government always attracts the sedition law in India. Criticism is the culture of any democratic state. And whenever the government uses any law as a tool or weapon for the sake of self-benefit or for continuing in power and uses such tools against the Opposition or an individual, it ultimately undermines the democratic structure envisaged by the Constitution of any democratic country. Justice Chandrachud, while hearing the sedition matter, said that “expression of dissatisfaction against any government ought to be allowed as it functions in the same way as safety valves work in a pressure cooker to ease out the pressure”.</p>.<p>“Merely criticising government rule or any law cannot be called sedition unless it has the potential to encourage people to be violent and show anger. Right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is as valuable as the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution”. The use of any words or actions to encourage people to be or act against a government is sedition in any law. Depending on this, courts have leaned towards saying that in the absence of violence, sedition law cannot be invoked.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>The history</strong></p>.<p>In British India, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were charged under sedition law for writing against the colonial government. In 1897, Tilak was the first Indian political personality to be prosecuted under the draconian sedition law three times in a row. He was imprisoned for up to six years for “seditious” speeches and writings in the newspaper <span class="italic">Kesari</span>, which gave birth to hatred against colonial rule. Based on the Kedar Nath judgement in 1962, it was said that the citizen enjoys the right of criticism against any government without any intention to incite violence.</p>.<p>Dhiren Sadokpam and Paojel Chaoba were arrested under the sedition law and the UAPA for publishing an article “Revolutionary journey in a mess” in a newspaper in Manipur. The author, M Joy Luwang, was also arrested later. Shashi Tharoor was booked for his tweet when a farmer had died in police firing. In May 2020, Dhaval Patel, owner of a Gujarati news portal, was booked for sedition for publishing a report suggesting that the leadership of a state would change and was also booked under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act (DMA). After four months, the Gujarat High Court quashed the matter.</p>.<p>Various other cases of sedition were registered against politician Praveen Togadia, doctor Binayak Sen, writer Arundhati Roy, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, Hardik Patel, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Space for dissent</strong></p>.<p>The polarity of the nation and citizens brings out how in democratic India, where the state has limited avenues to exercise complete power, individual liberties of the citizen are considered a threat and autocratic. Laws designed to deal with extraordinary circumstances, just like the sedition law and therefore the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, are used instead to create a narrative around state power. Expressions of dissent are not any longer being understood as an exercise of democratic rights, and are instead considered threats to the state. Terming their citizens ‘urban Naxals’ or ‘anti-national’, and that they belong to an invisible Naxal-intelligentsia-media- academia-NGO-activist nexus seeking to threaten the state, may be a means of coercing other citizens into silence, because the idea of the anti-national citizen gains prominence in India. Greater research must be conducted on how nationalism is being used to stifle various sorts of dissent, not just through laws but the facility of popular opinion. In a world where freedom from fear is sanctioned as a world right, one must question the necessity for a law like sedition that seeks to send shivers down the spines of citizens.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Data and Court’s view</strong></p>.<p>Before the amendment to Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the Punjab High Court held that sedition was incompatible with free speech in a democratic republic, and struck it down as unconstitutional. Ram Nandan questioned the validity of the sedition law and his conviction by the judicature at the Allahabad High court. The court declared it to be unconstitutional and overturned his conviction for a speech.</p>.<p>Law Commission Chairman B S Chauhan (Retd) had recommended repealing or a rethink on the sedition law prevailing in India. He further said that “expressing of dissatisfaction with the current condition of affairs cannot be considered sedition”. According to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2014, a total of 47 cases, 30 cases in 2015, 35 in 2016, 51 in 2017, and 70 cases in 2018, were registered under the sedition law. So far, 816 cases of sedition were registered since 2010 and 3,762 individuals were charged with sedition. The highest number of cases registered under sedition law was in Bihar (168), Tamil Nadu (139), Uttar Pradesh (115), Jharkhand (62) and Karnataka (50).</p>.<p>The law cannot be misused as a tool to curb free speech. It must be understood that criticising or being disloyal to the government is not disloyalty against the nation. But nowadays, the government is using it to suppress the truthful voice of the activist, journalist, politician, student or even the citizen.</p>.<p>The fundamental right of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ is misunderstood because it does not restrain a citizen from criticising a political statement provided it does not incite or hurt the emotions of people against the state.</p>.<p><span class="italic">(<em>The writer is a law student, Central University of Allahabad</em>)</span></p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>