The Law of Sedition: History and Constituionality

Riya Raman is an LLB(H) student at Bennett University and has done her bachelors in English Honours. Her area of interest in law is Intellectual Property law, Criminal law and Media law and writing and research, literature, novels.

INTRODUCTION

Sedition is overt behaviour that goes toward revolt against the existing order, such as speech and organisation. Subversion of a constitution and instigation of discontent with, or insurgency against, existing authority are common examples of sedition. Any uproar that is not intended at direct and open violence against the laws is considered sedition. Seditious libel is the use of seditious language in writing. A seditionist is someone who participates in or advocates sedition. Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has the right to talk and express their opinions. However, this liberty is not unrestricted, and under Article 19, some legitimate limitations on freedom of speech and expression have been established. However, if a person is found to be indulged in an act that is considered to be disrespectful of the Indian government through his words, signs, or representation, then that person under section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would be punished. Sedition is a crime that punishes speech that is considered disloyal or dangerous to the state.

The rule of sedition has long been a difficult matter of constitutional law jurisprudence in India, with arguments ranging from calls for the legislation to be completely repealed from our statute books to others arguing for its full reinstatement with more aggressive enforcement. Many others, on the other hand, have advocated for preserving the clause but limiting its application to specific legal parameters to strike a compromise between national security and fundamental rights.

HISTORY OF SEDITION

Many legal experts claim that the sedition provision is a relic of British colonial control, meant to silence critical voices in the Indian independence movement. The current version of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), was not included in Macaulay's original draught of the IPC in 1860 and was only adopted in 1870, led by James Stephen. This version was further modified by the IPC (Amendment Act) of 1898, after which it has essentially remained unchanged.

In the case of ‘Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose & Ors,”[i] the editors of a Bengali journal were charged with sedition for their criticism of the British government's policies, particularly the Age of Consent Act, 1891. The

contrast between 'disapprobation' (a valid criticism) and 'disaffection' (which refers to 'any feeling opposed to affection') was further emphasised by the High Court. Because only disaffection is punishable, the court determined that sedition does not infringe on people's rights.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, did not include Section 124A during the British era. However, the IPC (Amendment) Act of 1870 added this section to the IPC. This clause was later replaced by Section 124A by an amending act of 1898. Under the previous IPC, "exciting or attempting to stir sentiments or disaffection was classed as Sedition," according to British Era Law.

MEANING OF SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A of IPC, 1860

“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 shall be punishable with Life Imprisonment”.[ii]

The explanation I to the Section defines the scope of disaffection, and Explanation II and III indicate what under the English Law is not considered seditious intention.

What constitutes ‘sedition' in India is a contentious issue. According to the Indian Penal Code, an act must contain the following elements to be considered "seditious". Any words, whether written or spoken, as well as signs such as placards and posters (visible representation). Must incite hostility, disdain, and dissatisfaction with the Indian government. Imminent violence' or public unrest must occur. According to the Court's interpretation of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the following acts are considered "seditious." Groups are raising slogans against the administration. Individuals who raised slogans once or twice were not considered seditious. To be declared seditious, a speaker's remarks must inspire violence or public unrest. Following cases have gone on to expand the definition to include "incitement to impending violence."

“Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State”[iii] was the first case in independent India in which a court decision on the constitutional validity of section 124A of the IPC. Constitutional provisions took precedence over British precedents now that India was an independent nation. “In this case, the then-Punjab High Court acknowledged that section 124A was unmistakably a restriction on freedom of speech and expression and invalidated the provision because it violated Article 19 of the Indian constitution's basic right to freedom of speech and expression.”[iv]

Soon after, the first Parliament of independent India approved the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which tried to resolve the constitutionality of the sedition statute as a result of the Tara Singh Gopi Chand decision, among other things. It achieved so by establishing new grounds for restricting the right to freedom of speech and expression reasonably. The only grounds for limiting free speech mentioned in Article 19(2) of the original Constitution were the state's security, defamation, contempt of courts, and decency and morality. The Amendment Act added new reasons for restricting freedom of speech and expression, including public order, foreign relations, and incitement to commit an offence.

Now, invoking the crime of sedition did not have to be limited to acts harming the state's security or attempting to overthrow it; it only had to be 'in the interest of the state's security. Such broad definitions provided the government with more leeway in invoking the sedition offence.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW OF SEDITION IN INDIA

According to the Kedar Nath judgement in 1962, the law of sedition was supposed to be utilised only in rare circumstances where the country's security and sovereignty were threatened. However, there is mounting evidence that this regulation has been exploited to suppress dissent and free expression by political opponents. According to the most recent data, 25 sedition prosecutions were filed after the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act rallies, 22 after the Hathras gang rape and 27 after the Pulwama incident under Article 14. In the recent decade, 405 Indians have been prosecuted for sedition, with 96% of the cases being presented after 2014.

One of the most serious legal issues with the sedition law is that it is inadequately defined. The expressions "incite to hatred or contempt" and "try to stir disaffection" can be interpreted in a variety of ways, allowing the police and government to harass innocent persons on the other side of the fence. “Because it does not explicitly indicate which acts are seditious and provides a broad description of what can be classified as seditious, the police can utilise sedition law to unjustly accuse persons due to its inadequate definition.”[v] While restraining the Andhra Pradesh government from taking adverse action against two Telugu news networks charged The publishers argued that sedition punishes only those who write seditious material, not those who publish it and therefore questioned the law's very existence. They contended that punishing people for exercising their constitutional rights was against the law's original intent.

According to the Calcutta High Court, the publishers could not be absolved of legal responsibility just because they did not compose the seditious content because the magazine's circulation was intended to be read by the target audience. Under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud raised this concern. "Everything cannot be seditious," Justice Chandrachud said. It's past time for us to determine what constitutes sedition and what does not." "Expression of views that are dissenting and distinct from the government's perspective cannot be considered seditious," Justice Chandrachud said in another major case (a PIL filed against Farooq Abdullah, the former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir).

Similarly, the Delhi High Court's judgement in the Disha Ravi case said unequivocally that the government cannot imprison citizens "just because they chose to disagree with state policy" and that "the offence of sedition cannot be utilised; to minister to the governments' wounded vanity." These court decisions differ from the executive branch's interpretation of the sedition legislation, demonstrating how the law is being abused indiscriminately.

The freedom of free speech and expression is a cornerstone of democracy, yet it is under assault due to sedition laws. In a democracy, citizens must actively participate in debates and provide a constructive critique of government policy. “The executive branch, on the other hand, has been permitted by the sedition laws to exploit the ambiguously written provision to police public opinion and indiscriminately wield power.”[vi] Sedition legislation has evolved into a weapon for creating a sense of cooperation with government policies in citizens. The administration has frequently used the sedition to stifle critics to protect interests of their own.

The arrests of NDTV journalist Vinod Dua for criticising the government's response to COVID-19 and Disha Ravi, 22, in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case for tweeting in support of India's farmer revolt have raised many worries about freedom of speech and expression in the country. It hurts democracy when journalists are exposed to censorship under the sedition statute. Sedition laws reduce government accountability because they allow the government to ignore its critics and punish people for sedition.

What's more concerning is that, once you've been arrested for sedition, obtaining bail can be extremely difficult due to the lengthy trial procedure. As a result, innocent people are hounded, and others are hesitant to criticise the government. The Kashmiri students in Hubli are an example of how difficult it is to obtain bail in a sedition case, as they were granted default bail after 100 days in police prison.

CONCLUSION

To summarise, sedition laws and their escalating abuse by governments of all shades (even those run by opposition parties) are a serious concern. Sedition laws and their flagrant misuse challenge the fundamental core of these liberties established in the Indian Constitution. The judiciary must evaluate this terrible statute as soon as possible. Even though repealing the law is unlikely, toning it down and setting rigorous restrictions to limit its indiscriminate use can assist India's democratic status while still protecting freedom of expression.

REFERENCES

[i] (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35

[ii] SEDITION ACT IN INDIA by Khushi Nigam – JOURNAL FOR LAW .... https://www.jlsrjournal.in/sedition-act-in-india-by-khushi-nigam/

[iii] 1951 CriLJ 449

[iv] Supreme Court concerned if Sedition Law in present India .... https://indianlawwatch.com/the-need-of-sedition-law-in-present-india/

[v] Centre For National Policy Research | Sedition Law - A .... https://cnpr.in/sedition-law-a-misfit-in-modern-india/

[vi] 3 branches.docx - Running Head BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT 1 .... https://www.coursehero.com/file/115331228/3-branchesdocx/

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.