SEDITION LAW IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

The recent instances of summoning sedition law a few examples have again brought up issues on the undemocratic nature and legitimacy of these regulations in the currently established democracy. An analysis of the law of sedition uncovers how state power is laid out by wielding a definitive political instrument in a vote-based country i.e., 'public opinion. And how different interpretation regarding sedition law leads to its misuse in society. It is important to understand the difference between freedom of expression and speech and the law of sedition. It is miserable that these regulations have to endure the demise of colonial rule. The analysis of the use of the sedition law by the different courts of India shows how they have become obsolete for the current society and there are different proposals for their application. 

KEYWORDS: Sedition Law, Freedom of speech, Democracy, Indian Penal Code

INTRODUCTION

Chief Justice NV Ramana said, "Dispute is it is Colonial Law, very same law was used by the British to silence (Mahatma) Gandhi. Is the law still necessary in our country after 75 years of Independence?" In its interpretation of Section 124A, the Supreme Court says that it must be against the state, not against the public authority or government.

An analysis of the law of sedition uncovers how state power is laid out by wielding a definitive political instrument in a vote-based country i.e., 'public opinion.

From the speeches of Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak to the  Arrest of Disha Ravi,  Sharjeel Imam, or Binayak Sen, sedition law always brings into focus a spike in state and central governments using sedition charges to deal with dissent or criticism.

There are developing occasions to show that this regulation has been weaponized as a helpful apparatus against political opponents, to smother disagreement and free speech.

THE SEDATION LAW IN INDIA

Section – 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code explains “Sedition” in magnanimous and broad terms. It reads: “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 aims to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”

Sedition is legally defined as “the criminal act of revolting against established authority, usually in the form of treason or defamation of a government. This regulation was ordered in 1860, under the British Raj, to stop any offenses against the state.”

The United Kingdom officially introduced Sedition law in India, yet the actual UK made no Sedition charges against any individual between the period 1972 and 2009. Eventually, the UK annulled the sedition law totally in 2009.

HISTORY OF SEDITION LAW

Sedition was first presented in 1870 as an offense under Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code which is connected with the offenses against the state. The primary preliminary of sedition was directed on account of the Queen v. Jogendra Chandra Bose of the Bangabasi case. There has been a long-running discussion about the abuse of Section 124A, and whether this arrangement ought to be proclaimed illegal, which has been happening for quite a while.

In India, Whenever we discuss the historical backdrop of the SEDITION LAW, it is connected to the Indian freedom struggle and freedom movement. Following the Indian Independence Revolt of 1857, the main endeavor was made to classify the criminal regulation in its ongoing structure. Therefore, the Indian Penal Code was presented in 1860, given the suggestions of the first Law Commission, which was headed by Lord Macaulay and was laid out in 1860. There was no mention of Section 124A of the IPC (hereinafter alluded to as the Act) which managed the sedition law in the IPC.  

INTERPRETENCE WITH THE DEFINITION 

The definition of sedition is interpreted many times in court. Earlier to impose sedition law in India, two main elements were considered, Public Disorder and Violence. 

To make sedition law strong, courts narrow down the meaning and definition of sedition and state that an act that threatened the state’s security is sedition. 

With the rise in cases of sedition in India, it challenges its constitutional validity. It was decided in a landmark judgment of  Kedarnath v. the State of Bihar, that Section 124A was constitutionally valid.

In a landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the court discusses the three important concepts w.r.t. freedom of expression: Advocacy, Discussion, Incitement and states that Mere advocacy or discussion is not sedition. 

PUNISHMENT UNDER SEDITION LAW

Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under Section 124A gives imprisonment as long as three years to a life a term, to which a fine might be added.

An individual charged under this law is banished from administration work. They need to live without their visa and should present themselves in the court consistently as and when required.

LANDMARK SEDITION CASES

The Queen-Empress vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak(1897)

some of the most famous sedition trials of the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth century included Indian patriot pioneers. Of these Tilak was accused of sedition in two events. The first was in 1897 for the addresses that supposedly prompted the rough way of behaving of others, which brought about the death of two British officials. He was indicted and delivered on bail in 1898, and in 1909 he was again arraigned for the sedition writing in the paper Pubjab Kesari, however, he was released once more.

Kedarnathath Singh vs. State of Bihar(1962)

A landmark and first case of sedition after independent India where the Supreme Court clearly stated that seditious speech and expression may be culpable provided that the speech is impelling to "violent" or "public disorder."

Balwant Singh and ANR vs. the State of Punjab

The accused raised the slogan "KhalistaanZindabad" outside the cinema hall soon after the death of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The Supreme Court said that the slogan raised by the accused did not affect the public. Two people nonchalantly raising slogans couldn't be supposed to be energizing disaffection towards the public authority. Area 124A wouldn't apply to the facts and conditions of this case.

Aseem Trivedi vs. State of Maharastra (2012)

Controversial, political cartoonist and activist, Aseem Trivedi, was arrested on charges of sedition, in 2010 for allegedly insulting the National Emblem in a negative manner having replaced the lions with rabid wolves during the Anna Hazare protest.

SheryaSinghal vs. Union of India

In the famous 66A judgment, the Supreme Court drew an unmistakable qualification between "advocacy" and "incitement", expressing that main the last option could be punishment. In this manner, advocating revolution or advocating even vicious defeat of the State, doesn't add up to the sedition, except if there is incitement to violence and all the more critically, the induction is to 'fast approaching' violence.

MISUSE OF LAW OF SEDITION

The sedition law under section 124A is not clearly defined which leads to its misuse.  The expressions "bring into hatred or contempt" or "attempt to excite disaffection" can be interpreted in numerous ways and this enables the police and government to disturb honest residents who are across the fence from them. The law can be involved deceptively by the police to erroneously charge people as it doesn't plainly state which acts are seditious and gives an expansive diagram of what can be classified as seditious.

Notwithstanding the set-out rules for applying the charge of sedition, lower courts have regularly neglected to apply these boundaries while considering sedition cases. There is a complete absence of permeation of settled legal assessment to bring down levels of the legal executive. Legal executives ought to address this systemic lapse.

The latest instances of Sedition have included personalities like Arundhati Roy, Hardik Patel, Kanhaiya Kumar, and others. A portion of these cases was managed nonsensically and didn't need the application of Section 124A. The Government, consistently, has been condemned on various occasions for utilizing this regulation to stifle the voices of people.

LAW OF SEDITION VS FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Each instance of sedition has a typical guard that the activity was done in pursuance of Article 19(1)(a) as he could speak freely under which he said those proclamations. However, what individuals don't know about is Article 19(2) which expresses that speech or a demonstration ought not to be something that can invoke or affect others against the state. Assuming that something is equipped for causing agitation in the country, it can't be protected by utilizing Article 19(1)(a). Such a demonstration that prompts others to obliterate the solidarity and respectability of the country will be named sedition and not free speech.

WHETHER THE SEDITION LAW SHOULD  BE ABOLISHED OR NOT?

The Sedition law ought not to be abolished as certain estimations are expected to take a look at public brutality and uprising activities like Naxals. The court additionally needs to inspect the arrangement of the offense of sedition as cognizable and non-bailable. The right remedy is to educate the law and urge them that instigation of violence is vital for summoning Section 124-A. Abuse of the sedition law ought to draw in suitable punishments for law combined with an arrangement for remuneration to the harmed party. Section 124A ought to be summoned exclusively in situations where the aim behind any demonstration is to disturb public order or to topple the Government with violence and unlawful means.

CONCLUSION

Sedition is, no question, a disputable idea; it should be held in a fragile offset with our 'Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression'. While no resident ought to be permitted to spread unnecessary hatred among the majority and prompt viciousness against the Government (particularly in a nation established on the standards of peacefulness) each resident ought to likewise have the opportunity to communicate their perspectives on the Government and express their views. Sedition laws and their growing abuse by legislatures of all stripes including opposition governed states involve genuine concern. Individual freedom and the right to expression and free speech are signs of liberal democracy in-country and sedition law and its absurd abuse assault the actual groundwork of these freedoms revered in the Indian Constitution. The need of the hour requires the legal executive to survey this draconian regulation. Regardless of whether abrogating this regulation may not be attainable, hushing up and giving severe rules to restrict its unpredictable use can help India's democratic standing separate from safeguarding freedom of expression in the country.