Few weeks back, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana commented that the “colonial law” was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, while hearing a petition filed by Major General (retired) SG Vombatkere where he challenged the constitutional validity of the Section 124A of the IPC. According to the petition Section 124A hinders one’s fundamental right to free speech and expression which is given in the Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
What does Section 124A states?
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides punishment for sedition. This section was introduced into the Code in 1870. It is part of Chapter VI of the Code that deals with crimes against the state. It states that,
“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 obtain 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.”
History of Sedition Law
The first known example of the use of the law was the trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Boss in 1891. Other well-known examples of the same are the Tilak and Gandhi trials. Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar were also accused of sedition.
Tilak faced three lawsuits and was arrested twice. In 1897, he was charged with inciting rebellion for writing an article in the weekly “Kesari” and was sentenced to 12 months in prison. In 1908, he was tried again, M.A. Jinnah represented him, but his application for bail was rejected and he was sentenced to six years in prison. For the second time, he was again tried for his writings about the murder of European women in Muzaffarpur when ‘Bengali terrorists’ dropped bombs.
In 1922, Gandhi was arrested for participating in protests against the colonial government inciting an uprising in Mumbai. He was sentenced to six years in prison, but was released two years later for medical reasons.
The sedition law has been questioned many times in post-independence years, but has withstood all opposition. In 1958 while hearing a case the Allahabad High Court held sedition law as void. Even Punjab High Court did the same in 1951. In the landmark case of 1962, Kedar Nath versus Union of India, the Supreme Court brought back sedition, interpreting the section to say that it only applies if there is “incitement to violence”.
According to a blog published by the Library of Congress, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the main purpose of the law is to suppress the writings and speeches of famous Indian nationalists and freedom fighters. Over the years, various people have been booked under this provision of the IPC, including author Arundhati Roy for her controversial remarks on Kashmir, Hardik Patel (who is facing sedition cases related to the 2015 Patidar quota agitation) and more recently, climate activist Disha Ravi, Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid, journalists Vinod Dua and Siddique Kappan among others.
Conclusion
According to the data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), uploaded on its website, cases of sedition and under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act showed a rise in 2019, but only 3% of the sedition cases resulted in convictions. On 15th July 2021, the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana drew attention to the fact that the rate of conviction under sedition is very low and that this law has been misused by the executive powers. Some critics of the law further elaborate on this point by claiming that the purpose of this law is not to convict the charged, but to harass and to silence critics of the government.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.