Section 124A has been a controversial topic for as long as it has existed. This is because politicians from time to time pull out sedition charges against people who question the government, criticise it and/or support rebels and insurgents.
Sedition is the offence of promoting the feeling of enmity and disloyalty to the government by words spoken or written, or through signs or visible representations.
Sedition is about causing revolt against government. Sedition laws have a serious impact on human rights because it limits freedom of speech and expression.
Sedition laws are in place in many countries across the world. India became one among them when it first enacted sedition law in 1870 under section 124A, IPC.
Sedition law has become an oppressive mechanism. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 35 cases of sedition (all over India) were reported in 2016. Section 124A is a provision of Indian Penal Code which prohibits words, spoken or written, or signs or visible representation that can cause public disorder and breach of peace.
The sedition law has been used in the recent past against several public personalities, particularly those critical of the government such as a cartoonist for his harsh depictions of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee against Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain.
Sedition as a catch-all term is very dangerous. We must be careful with the use of sedition because it does not take into consideration disaffection towards (a) the Constitution, (b) the legislatures, and (c) administration of justice, all of which would be as disastrous to the security of the State.
The Indian penal code (IPC) allows considerable leeway in applying, and hence misapplying, criminal law. The sedition law in particular is being used to silence dissent, despite its infirmities being well documented. Are we to believe there was not a single example of sedition in the last 70 years? The real objective behind the law is not legal but political. The decision to invoke Section 124-A seems to be arbitrary and motivated by personal bias against the accused.
Section 124-A of the IPC is a relic from the British era that criminalizes sedition. It has been severely criticized by Indian jurists and parliamentarians alike as infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens. The recent high-profile cases in which individuals were charged with sedition include those of a professor in JNU Nivedita Menon, Kanhaiya Kumar, Activist Hardik Patel all of whom speak against State policies. But more troubling is the far-reaching use of this charge beyond urban centers in Punjab, Chattisgarh, Telangana and Kerala.
The sedition clause was a colonial tool introduced by the British in India to suppress the freedom struggle and even after partition it could exist in both the countries due to political relevance. It is same as the British are asking us today dance on their tunes - we are sovereign now and responsible for our destiny. To safeguard our democracy, sovereignty and integrity this law should be abolished.
India ratified the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979. Since that year, the Indian government has violated many of its provisions including Article 19(3) – the free expression clause, the right to privacy, and the rights of due process. The misuse of sedition law under Section 124A is also contrary to Article 19(1)(a) dealing with freedom of speech. Moreover, the arbitrary slapping of charges is inconsistent with the ICCPR.
The sedition law (Section 124A) in India is quite an enigma. It has been used on few occasions for the purposes of quelling national dissent and even suppressing freedom of speech. Article 19 (1) of Indian constitution provide freedom of speech as a fundamental right. Section 124A is against Article 19 (1).
As pointed by the Law Commission of India, is that the definition of sedition does not take into consideration disaffection towards (a) the Constitution, (b) the legislatures, and (c) administration of justice, all of which would be as disastrous to the security of the State.
The need for continuation of Section 124A can be analysed in two ways. First, on account of the exceptions made by our Constitution for reasonable restriction of free speech and secondly, to prevent the abuse of free speech especially when it is used to incite hatred and violence.
Now, freedom of speech is protected through Article 19 (1) of the Constitution although it is not unlimited. Sometimes Speech is used as a tool to destabilise country polity and to promote enmity in the society. It is in these cases that the said right has to be controlled by law to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country and the society.
Section 124A is a vital legislations that provides Indian state an ability to tackle violent revolutionaries. Section 124A is against people who operate as parallel government or rebels and try to overthrow current government through violent means. The section also supports state in arresting people with sedition intent. Currently, India is facing Maoist insurgency and rebel groups enormously.
Sedition is a highly sensitive issue in India. A good chance for the elevation of a political career would be to appear more patriotic and firm towards sedition.
It is hard to believe an enlightened country like India can treat its individuals with such a legislation which is a symbol of suppression of freedom and liberty.
Anybody can be termed as anti-national and prosecuted, even for writing a blog telling Indian citizens that ‘being anti-national is not always bad’, as happened in Kanhaiya’s case.
Sedition continues to be a highly debated topic in India at one end it is said it has lost its real connotation and anybody questioning the government could be charged with sedition and on the other end, it remains undemocratic.
