SEDITION CURSE FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

 It is 150 years from now to the formation of sedition as a 124 A section in the Indian Penal Code. History says that many freedom fighters are convicted under this section of IPC like For first time it was used upon Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897 for publishing news against the British Government in his newspaper Kesari regarding the negligence in dangerous bacterial infection and next on Mahatma Gandhi who was arrested because he published four articles in the journal name young India that were related to non-cooperation. In these four articles, Gandhi Ji has written that Indian soldiers and all Indian government employees should leave their jobs, and even also he has written that if we want to get independence then each and every person should have to be seditious towards Britishers. In 1992 Britishers arrested Gandhi Ji for this act and a court trial started and he admitted guilty and said this section 124 A (sedition) is a like prince of all sections who keeps the citizens suppressed he said you facilitated a famous and popular freedom fighter with a prince of the IPC and after this, he lives in the jail for next two years. This shows how aggressively Britishers used this section in the colonial period.

HISTORY

The Foundation of the sedition was embedded in IPC in 1870 and it was not the first time in the world also in England in 1275 by king Edward One and it's called the statute of Westminster he enacted the same kind of law but the concept was different in a manner this law punishes those who spread false or fake information regarding king and its works which results into the conflict between the king and its subjects. In the IPC of 1860, there is no section related to the sedition but there is a word seditious. After 1860 a movement started in India called the Wahhabi movement due to fear of the vastness of the movement British government added section 124A in the IPC. This shows that Britishers want to rule for a long time and with the help of sedition they can suppress the aggression against them.

After independence, we got our constitution and six fundamental rights one of them is the right to freedom of speech and expression Article 19. This contradicts with the sedition law of IPC which controls citizens to express their views against the government. Section 124A of IPC says that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by sign, or by visible representation, or otherwise, bring or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government establishment by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment of life, to which fine may be added, or which imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine added, or with fine. If this section restricts the person to express their views of what he thinks then how is this section prevailing now? Do constitution-makers discuss this or not?

In the month of December 1948 constitutional maker’s is discussing the section of the right to freedom of speech and expression and it’s sections about the reasonable restriction. In a draft of the constitution, there is a section under the freedom of speech and expression i.e deals with the government has the power to curtail this freedom by making laws on national security and related with sedition. Here the word sedition has become a hot topic for constitution-makers whether the use of sedition is right or wrong many of them have given examples of freedom fighters who face the sedition law and lost their lives in the colonial period. So this freedom should be given to the citizens to criticize the government. So, after so many arguments finally word sedition was discarded from the constitution of India and like this, the debate on sedition ended in the constituent assembly. Now in the sections on the freedom of speech and expression, the word sedition is removed. But sedition law is in IPC which is in action till now.

After this many courts interpreted the law of sedition many times and said that if any act is done to or not to be done for public disorder and if the speaker provokes the citizens for the cause of the public disorder, then only that falls under the sedition. In Kedar Nath Singh’s sedition judgment the court held that unless accompanied by incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labelled sedition. The seven principles are given in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling to specify situations in which the charge of sedition cannot be applied. Many incidents happened in the past where courts declined the sedition charges from the accused but this law is prevailing nowadays because of the parliamentarians who do not want to amend or repeal this section from the IPC.

In January 2020 during the CAA protest, 3000 protesters were accused of sedition and got arrested and in 2019, 3300 farmers got arrested under sedition charges while they were protesting for land disputes. If we see the conviction rate in 2019 is 3.3% this shows that many arrests are done on wrong grounds. In the recent case of Vinod Dua who faces sedition charges because he criticized the PM and the centre for handling the migrant crisis, for this BJP leader Ajay Shyam filed a case of sedition upon Dua. During the proceedings in the

Supreme Court Tushar Mehta (SGI) argued that Dua had spread fake or false news regarding the migrant crisis. which may cause panic “for example, the statement that some people feared that there could be food riots post lockdown was without any basis and had the clear potential of spreading panic.” but SC held that the criticism is genuine regarding the government and it can't be labelled under the seditious remarks.

If we go through the section of sedition, we get to know four sources of sedition. They are spoken words, written words, signs or visible representations. In simple words, if you commit an offense with above-mentioned words and these bring or attempt to bring government into hatred and show disaffection towards the government. There are three explanations of this section in which first says disaffection also include disloyalty and feelings of enmity. In the next second and third it says that if you comment on initiatives of the government or actions of the government without bringing or attempting contempt or hatred or exciting towards the government or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government. This is the whole thing that this section talks about. If we see this with an example, if you say that any policy of the government is bad and the government is good then you may not fall under this section but if you say that government policy is consistently bad and the government is not performing well or just say worst performance then you are liable under section 124A. This may be proved by seeing all cases related to sedition. If you go through the Kedar Nath judgment then sedition is only when your writing and speech lead to instigating the citizens which leads to violence or public disorder. The problem lies in the fact that sedition law has never been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which clearly violates article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution, the most valuable and precious right of the citizens of the country.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

A bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section 124A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice being caused to the accused.

The bench said in its order:

“We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124 A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over”

The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are presently in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. It has also been ruled that if any fresh case is registered, appropriate parties are at liberty to approach courts for appropriate relief and courts are requested to examine the relief sought to take into account the order passed by the court.

The CJI said while dictating the order “The court is cognisant of the duty of the State on one hand and citizens’ civil liberties on the other. There is a requirement of balance of consideration. The case of petitioner is that this provision of law dated back 1898 and is being misused. The Attorney General had also given instances of glaring misuse like cases registered for recital of hanuman chalisa”.

In 1951 the PM Jawaharlal Nehru said that “I am concerned that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better,” In 2010 the Britishers in their own country had repealed this draconian law but it is present in Indian law books. It is like open-ended law because by this law the government can easily tackle their opposer’s.