This article has been written by Ishika Sharma, a 1st-year student of Gujarat National Law University.

Introduction

Sedition is defined as inciting violence or disorder against any legitimate authority with the goal to do harm. Disaffection is a term that encompasses hostility. Nevertheless, remarks that indicate criticism of a government administrative decision or other action without encouraging or attempting to encourage hate, contempt, or disaffection do not violate this clause. Under this provision, simple criticism of the government is not prohibited.

Section 124 A of IPC says 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”. A person accused under this provision shall be prohibited from working for the Indian government since the offence is not subject to bail.

History

In the 17th century, legislators in England passed sedition laws because they thought that only pro-government viewpoints should be tolerated since the views against the government may undermine the government’s ability to run its affairs. Thomas Macaulay wrote the legislation in 1837, and in 1860, the Indian Criminal Code (IPC) codified it.

In India during the British era, this legislation led to the prosecution of several independence fighters. Famous independence fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bala Gangadhar Tilak were also charged with sedition. Because of his writings in “Young India,” which appeared in his newspaper, Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years. Sedition is “Prince among the political elements of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the citizen’s liberty,” according to Mahatma Gandhi.

Relevance of sedition law in India 

• In order to ensure that it is exercised properly and that it is equally available to all Indian citizens, the Indian constitution provides that appropriate constraints [under Article 19(2)] may be imposed at any time.
• The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(2) mentions reasonable restrictions, such as those related to court contempt, defamation, or incitement to commit an offence, as well as the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, the state’s security, friendly relations with other countries, public order, decency, or morality.
• The Sedition Act helps the government combat anti-national, separatist, and terrorist groups in order to preserve national integrity. Moreover, this act forbids anti-national, separatist, and terrorist groups from upsetting peace and provoking hostility.
• By preventing violent and unlawful efforts to overthrow the elected administration, it helps to maintain state stability. The stability of the state depends on the presence of a legally established government.

Freedom of Speech and Expression 

“All citizens shall enjoy the right to freedom of speech and expression,” according to Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution’s Preamble, which solemnly resolves to safeguard the liberty of thought and expression to all of the nation’s people, contains the justification for this article.

Press freedom, the right to broadcast, commercial speech freedom, the right to knowledge, and the right to criticize are all examples of freedom of speech and expression.

Law of Sedition vs Freedom of speech & expression

• The same argument is used in every sedition case: the act was performed in violation of Article 19. (1). Namely, his freedom of expression authorised him to make these assertions. Many people are not aware of Article 19(2), which states that one’s words or actions cannot incite others to rebel against the government. It is prohibited to utilize Article 19(1) to support something that might cause a national uprising. Sedition is defined as an act that stirs up others to undermine the integrity and unity of the country, not as free speech.
• Section 124A was declared illegal by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State, 1958, on the grounds that it limits the basic right to free expression. Yet in 1962, in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, the situation was reversed. It added a warning that the section should be understood to limit its applicability to conduct having the intention or propensity to produce uproar, disruption of law and order, or encouragement to violence when it upheld the section. If the sedition laws were enforced arbitrarily, they would be in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution, which protects the right to free speech.
• Democracy’s hallmark, the freedom to free speech and expression, is jeopardised by the sedition act. In a democracy, people must take part in discussions and constructively criticise government actions. On the other hand, the ambiguously worded language may be used by the executive arm of the government to control public opinion and arbitrarily exercise power under the sedition laws. The sedition laws have evolved into a weapon for encouraging individuals to support government initiatives. The administration has frequently used the sedition act to stifle critics in order to advance its own objectives. The detentions of NDTV journalist Vinod Dua for criticising the government’s response to COVID-19 and 22-year-old Disha Ravi in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case for tweeting in favour of the Indian farmer’s movement have raised several problems relating to freed individuals. It is detrimental to democracy when journalists are vulnerable to censorship under the sedition act. The sedition laws reduce governmental accountability since the government is free to punish and ignore its opponents.

Arguments against sedition law

• Because the seeds of sedition legislation were planted during colonial times, it is frequently presented as a strict rule that may be used to restrict the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the constitution.
• Constructive criticism suffers as a result. According to the Supreme Court, not all views that are opposed to the government are seditious. Hence, sedition laws may discourage individuals.
• As the Sedition Act was abolished in the United Kingdom in 2009, India should follow this as well.
• There are provisions in both the IPC and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2019 that provide for the punishment of those who disturb public order.
• India took a step in the right direction by ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979. As the Sedition Law is now in force, it is likely that it may be incorrectly enforced and that people could be prosecuted with a crime just for expressing their opinions.

Arguments in favor of sedition law

To combat anti-national, separatist, and terrorist groups, the Anti-Sedition Provisions Act is utilised. According to those who support this law, it defends the elected government from efforts to overthrow it through force and illegitimate methods. The stability of the state depends on the continued operation of the legalised form of governance. Additionally, it is believed that if criminal charges were brought for contempt of court, then the same should be true for contempt of government.

Conclusion

Sedition laws and their egregious abuse put certain rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution in jeopardy. This awful statute must be reviewed by the judiciary as soon as feasible. Even though it is doubtful that the legislation will be repealed, modifying it and placing severe limitations on its indiscriminate application might support India’s democratic status while still preserving freedom of expression. It is OK to criticize government decisions and policies if it is done in a reasonable manner and does not stir up unrest. Now, the section is used against any discordant entity without respect for fairness. This ambiguity needs to be clarified. Only when such sentences amount to an appeal to violence should they be included. Sedition should only be used to refer to issues that affect India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Aishwarya Says:

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 to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening