REVISITING THE SEDITION LAW (Section 124A)

The IPC defines sedition as an offence committed when” any person by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visual representation, or otherwise, brings
or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the government established by the law in India.”

The rally lead by Hardik Patel in 2015 pleading for a reservation quota was though
not provocative still he was charged with sedition. However, it is clearly mentioned in
the constitution that the comments which do not excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section. This 2015 case
undoubtedly belie this provision in the constitution.

PUNISHMENT
Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Its punishment ranges up to 3 years to Life
imprisonment. The person charged is barred from a government job. They have to
live without passports and must produce themselves to court at all times as and
when required.

This explicates that if, mistakably or unmistakably, an innocent citizen is convicted

with sedition charges, he would never be acquitted of the crime and will have to
forcibly undergo the announced punishment which is merely exploiting an innocent’s
life.

ARGUMENTS
Section 124A is a relic of colonial legacy and unsuited in democracy and a constraint
on legal exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression
which goes without any bounds in Article 19.

Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of healthy public
debate in a vibrant democracy. Right to question, criticize and change rulers is very
fundamental to the idea of democracy

The British, who introduced sedition to oppress Indians, have themselves abolished
the law. There is no reason, why India should not abolish this section.

‘Disaffection’ is a vague term and subject to different interpretation for the

investigating officers.

IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act have provisions that penalize ‘disrupting
the public order’ or ‘overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means’.
These are sufficient for protecting the national integrity. There is no need for Section
124A.
In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection of
freedom of speech and expression. However, misuse of sedition and arbitrary
slapping of charges are inconsistent with India’s International commitments.

DISUTILITY
According to a report by National Crime Records Bureau, there are total 179 arrests
for sedition. However, no charge sheet was filed by the police in over 70% of the
cases, and there were only two convictions during this time period.

SUPREME COURT
“A person could be prosecuted for sedition only if his acts caused incitements to
violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of
public peace.”

The SC ha stated that “An expression of frustration over the state of affairs cannot
be treated as sedition.” Similarly, the Union President of JNU, Kanhaiya Kumar, was
charged with sedition although he was just expressing his opinions which were anti-
government but not anti-national. He had been arrested but he was also found
innocent by the Delhi government like all others suspects had been.

If the country is not open to positive criticism, there would be no difference between
the pre- and post- Independence eras.

MANISH TEWARI
“In the past 55 months, misuse of this law has been rampant, more than ever before.
There is an organised attempt at thought control through fear and intimidation

As things stand today, especially when this law continues to be misused to stifle the
freedom of expression and speech, there are only two options before us. Either we
fine-tune it to such an extent that it becomes impossible for the government to invoke
it, except in circumstances where there is a clear and established nexus between
words and actions either to incite violence or to overthrow the government, which
actually is the language of the sedition law; sharpen it to such an extent that its
misuse gets obviated. Or, the next best course of action would be to get it repealed.