Silencing Dissent: Misuse of Sedition Law to Shut Up Critics

The sedition law cannot be used to "quieten the disquiet under the pretence of muzzling miscreants", a court in Delhi said while granting bail to two men accused of posting fake videos on Facebook on the farmer protests.

• The increasing use of the sedition law by the authorities in recent years has led to allegations that this colonial-era provision is being invoked largely to stifle the citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. 
• The arrest of environment activist Disha Ravi over a toolkit in support of the protesting farmers is a case in point.
  • Even though the document makes no mention of violence or incitement to violent behaviour, the 22-year-old woman has been booked on the charge of sedition.
  • Whether she was aware of the Khalistani leanings of the group allegedly behind the toolkit has also not been established so far.
• Amid the outrage over Disha’s arrest, a Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of posting fake videos on Facebook on the farmers’ protests.
• The court has asserted that the sedition law cannot be invoked to ‘quieten disquiet under the pretence of muzzling the miscreants’, especially if there is no ‘exhortation or incitement to create disorder or disturb public peace or resort to violence’.

Where the Sedition Law and its validity?

• The law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860.
• Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen when it felt the need for a specific section to deal with the offence.
• It was one of the many draconian laws enacted to stifle any voices of dissent at that time.
• Section 124A IPC states: “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 established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added; or, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”
• Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section.

• Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under the Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.
• A person charged under this law is barred from a government job. They have to live without their passport and must produce themselves in the court at all times as and when required.

• The law of sedition was a powerful tool in the hands of the state to maintain peace and order in society.
• However, it cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretence of muzzling miscreants.
• Its indiscriminate application threatens to undermine its potency and efficacy.

• Section 124A has been challenged in various courts in specific cases. The validity of the provision itself was upheld by a Constitution Bench in 1962, in Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar.
  • That judgment went into the issue of whether the law on sedition is consistent with the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees each citizen’s freedom of speech and expression.
• The Supreme Court laid down that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government, by way of criticism or comment, as long as it does not “incite people to violence” against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.

Arguments in favour

• National interest: The law has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements
• Stability of the State: It ensures continued existence of the government, which is essential condition of the stability of the State.
• Robust democracy: Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of robust public debate in a vibrant democracy. Right to question, criticize and change rulers is very fundamental to the idea of democracy.

Arguments against

• Legacy of colonial rule: It is a relic of colonial legacy and unsuited in a democracy.
• Constraint of constitutional machinery: It is a constraint on the legitimate exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression.

• The United Kingdom deleted the seditious libel through the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009.
• In Australia, following the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) the term sedition was removed and replaced with references to 'urging violence offenses'.

The Constitution of India provides all the wings of the governance, with a responsibility to secure at least ‘freedom of expression’ of their citizens, and all sorts of intimidation to silence them must be removed. Democracy must be encouraged by the State without fearing criticism, only this would be nationalism in true sense. If the right of individual will be snatched, the whole criminal justice system would crumble down.