CHAINED VOICES: THE ENDURANCE OF SEDITION LAW IN MODERN INDIA

This article is written by Payodhi Daschaudhuri pursuing B.A.LL.B (Hons) from the Adamas University. It delves into the persistence and impact of sedition laws in modern India, tracing their origins, historical use, and current relevance in the Indian legal landscape.

In the early 1870s, when the Britishers were rattled by the fervent defiance of the Indian freedom fighters, and subsequently were losing their colonial grip, at that time, to suppress this mass rebellion, the colonial government incorporated the draconian sedition law. Sedition can be defined as the publication or expression of certain libels in the form of opinion, write-up, or even an act which is the resultant of a seditious intention (Gupta). Britishers used such a draconian law to supress the mass freedom struggle, under the veil that such freedom movements are subjunctive to the security and integrity of the colonial government. Under the venomous umbrella of sedition, freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi, Lokmanya Tilak, Bhagat Singh and many more were arbitrarily detained (Noorani, 2021). M.K. Gandhi even termed this law as, “the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code (herein ‘IPC’) designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens” (Hari, 2022). Subsequently, the end of colonialism in India was marked in 1947 and the lex loci of the country was formulated. Many of the colonial laws were retained as they were progressive and relevant to the context of the societal demands, among which Indian Penal Code (1860), Indian Contract Act (1872), Transfer of Property Act (1882) etc. were some of them. Amidst of all these, Section 124A of the IPC still preserved its prominence.

Section 124A doesn’t explicitly uses the term ‘sedition’ in its bare provisions, but such a legal provision is tremendously prone to arbitrary usage and brings about ambiguities in its implementation. The provision expressly mentions that any kind of signs, visible representation, words (irrespective of whether written or spoken) which shall amount to disruption of public policy or augment hatred or rage against the government shall be treated as seditious and the person undergoing such activity may be sentenced up to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of this section many a times stating that this provision creates a reasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech and Expression [vested under Article 19(1)(a)] of the citizens to secure the sovereignty and integrity of the government. In the infamous case of Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar (AIR 1962, SC 955), the apex court held that people could criticise the government only if they do not incite the masses to rebel against the government. But such a wide applicability brings about more loopholes.

Such a swingeing provision might sound very protective towards the existing government, but it calls for a lot of ambiguities. First of all, creating a bar on the constructive criticism of a government is itself regressive as it ultimately restricts the growth of the government (Team, 2019). Democracy is nothing but the will of the people, and if the will of the people is not addressed by their representatives, then they have an inherent right to raise voices against it and laws like sedition is restraining such voices. Secondly, there are certain specific and already established laws present to counter the upsurge against the integrity and security of the nation which includes- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967; Section 121-124 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; in such a case, the law of sedition is not only draconian and but is being greatly misused. This became a sword for the ruling political parties to suppress all sorts of dissenting opinions against them to secure their political integrity, rather than the nation’s. Not only this, in the case of Aamoda Broadcasting Company & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petitions Criminal Nos. 217/2021), the Supreme Court has also opined that it was the need of the hour to demarcate the boundaries and limitations of the sedition law under Section 124A IPC, 1860. Also, in 2021, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana has asked for its relevancy even after 75 years of independence as it was a draconian colonial law (Hari, 2022).

With the enactment of the three new criminal laws, various proponents expected that may be India is finally getting rid of all sorts of draconian colonial laws and the legal system is incorporating more reasonable and comprehensive laws which are even more relevant to the growing needs of the society. But the incorporation of Section 150 in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita has proved that laws like sedition are yet to get ejected from the Indian legal fraternity. The new provision in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (herein BNS) on sedition seems like a processed version of the earlier provision. The bare reading of Sec 150 states that any “act” or “omission” which would facilitate war against the government shall be punishable with 10 years of imprisonment which may be coupled with fine as well. This mere inclusion of the words- ‘act’ and ‘omission’ is itself conferring vast power upon the government to address any activity as seditious if it is just opposing their policies. Also, another ambiguity is created by the inclusion of Section 152 of the BNS, which expresses that if anyone accelerates rebellious or separatist or subversive activity by means of words, signs, visual representation etc. then such an act shall also be punishable. Now the ambivalence is basically created due to the inclusion of the term ‘subversive’ as it is defined nowhere in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The only relevance of this term can be traced in the 43rd Report on Offences Against National Security, where under the inscription of “subversive activities”, various acts are being mentioned which are derogatory under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (Kumar, 2024), yet this doesn’t give any conclusive definition of the term used in the provision of Section 152. The problem which is still relevant concerning such a provision is that there are not quantifying measures as to demarcate which activities are to be termed as threat against ‘sovereignty and integrity of the nation’, as because constructive criticisms from the general public cannot be tied up in the knot of sedition as it would result in a regressive nation. Moreover, the most vital question remains prominent, that is, whether it would be socially and politically viable to keep such a draconian law in the contemporary context, which is vague and ambiguous, which doesn’t have any calibrating measure to demarcate such crime, and brings about more quantum of misuses than fulfilling its true legislative intent?

Its high time now to have a demarcated arena for offences like sedition, because of their tremendous vulnerability towards mis-implementation by the ruling parties. Moreover, incorporation of such vague terms as mentioned above in the provisions, attracts more disorientation and incertitude, not only for the citizens but also for the judiciary while trying such cases. Intervention of the Supreme Court to define such terms is the need of the hour, else a newer form of oppression may get ignited in the Indian political system, after 75 years of independence.

References

Gupta, A. (n.d.). SEDITION. RMNLU.

Hari, A. (2022, 05 11). Explainer: How the Sedition Law Has Been Used in the Modi Era. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/law/explainer-how-the-sedition-law-has-been-used-in-the-modi-era

Kumar, R. (2024, 09 20). REPEALING OF THE SEDITION LAW – DECODED. Retrieved from Surana & Surana: https://suranaandsurana.com/repealing-of-the-sedition-law-decoded/

Noorani, A. (2021, August 14). Sedition’ in freedom struggle. Frontline.

Team, C. (2019, 10 9). Use and misuse of Sedition law: Section 124A of IPC. Retrieved from India Today: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/use-and-misuse-of-sedition-law-section-124a-of-ipc-divd-1607533-2019-10-09