What is the sedition law, and why Supreme Court’s fresh directive is important

CategoryPolity

Last Updated13/05/2022

SC directed the Center and states to keep in abeyance all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of the IPC.

Section 124A of IPC: It defines it as:
“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 shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added”.

Thomas Macaulay (drafted the Indian Penal Code) had included the law on sedition.
It was not added in the code enacted in 1860.
In 1890: sedition was included as an offense under section 124A IPC through the Special Act XVII.
The provision was extensively used to curb political dissent during the Independence movement.
Several pre-independence cases involving Section 124A are against famous freedom fighters.
It included Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad and Mahatma Gandhi.

This is image title

The conviction rate in cases filed under the sedition law has fluctuated between 3% and 33% over the years.
The pendency of such cases in court reached a high of 95% in 2020.
Since 2014: the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) started compiling data on sedition,

399 sedition cases have been filed across the country. (high of 93 in 2019, and 73 in 2020)

States such as Assam, UP and J&K have registered high numbers of cases recently.

This is image title

Romesh Thapar v State of Madras (1950)
The SC held: “criticism of the government, exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it, is not to be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the press.
Unless it is such as to undermine the security of or tend to overthrow the state.”
Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) and Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)
High courts held: Section 124A of the IPC was primarily a tool for colonial masters.
Declared the provision unconstitutional.

A 5-judge Constitution Bench overruled the earlier rulings of the high courts and upheld the constitutional validity of IPC Section 124A.
Unless accompanied by an incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labeled sedition.
The court also issued 7 guidelines, underlining when critical speech cannot be qualified as sedition.
Not all speech with “disaffection”, “hatred,” or “contempt” against the state, but only speech that is likely to incite “public disorder” would qualify as sedition.
Public disorder: considered a necessary ingredient for the commission of sedition.
Mere sloganeering unaccompanied by any threat to public order would not qualify as sedition.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The court reiterated the real intent of the speech must be taken into account before labeling it seditious.

Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) - a person can be convicted for sedition even if he is not the author of the seditious speech but has merely circulated it.
Arun Jaitley v State of Uttar Pradesh (2016): Criticism of the judiciary or a court ruling would not amount to sedition.
Vinod Dua v Union of India: the SC quashed FIRs with charges of sedition against the journalist for criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis and cautioned against unlawful application of the provision.

The SC agreed to hear a fresh challenge against the provision after a batch of petitions were filed.
The government initially defended the provision, now telling the court that it is mulling a fresh review of the colonial law.
It is argued that the restricted Kedar Nath definition of sedition can be addressed through several other laws, such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Other countries like the United Kingdom,repealed it in 2009, Australia repealed its sedition law in 2010, and last year Singapore also repealed the law.
Need of the hour is to make new laws to address the actual need for sedition law without its chilling effects.