SEDITION IN INDIA

SEDITION IN INDIA

Sedition is defined as an offence committed when any person brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government. NCP chief Sharad Pawar recently created a stir with his affidavit before the Bhima Koregaon inquiry commission, wherein he said that the archaic sedition law should be repealed. He said there were acts like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in place that could effectively deal with these activities.

Advantages of Sedition Law

• National Security: It enables the state to effectively deal with insurgent groups and those who may pose debilitative threats to the security.
• Stability of State: It also gives enough protection against any anti-national activity or violent overthrow of the elected government.
• Sensitive social fabric: The law deters groups trying to create animosity or disharmony in the country.
• Non-state actors: It helps deter any individual seeking to bring down the elected government or have any terrorist intention.
• Preventive: The provisions of the act deter any person seeking to engage in anti-state activities.
• Left-Wing Extremist: It is an effective tool to fight insurgency in the Maoist-hit regions within India.
• Curbs sensational movements: It is also effective against groups seeking independence from India. Example: Khalistan groups, ULFA in Assam.
• Protects Public Sentiment: It enables the state to take action against those who stir public emotion and instigate riots and disorder.

Need for Reform

1. Political
   • Political Misuse: The section is being more misused than used these days; anyone who criticises the government is arrested under the stringent sedition.
   • Draconian: The law is a product of colonial India and thus its premise and logic are no longer valid in democratic and independent India.
   • Curbs healthy democracy: Sedition law hits hard at the open speech, one of the key pillars of a healthy democracy.
     • Example: In February 2021, the Supreme Court (SC) protected a political leader and six senior journalists from arrest, for allegedly tweeting and sharing unverified news, in multiple sedition FIRs registered against them.
   • Breach of International conventions: India has ratified various international covenants on civil and human rights, thus the sedition law does not conform with the clause to uphold free speech.
   • Poor Democratic Credentials: Frequent use of this law which has colonial origins curbs opposition and criticism in a nation and thus in the long run questions our democratic credentials.
     • Example: In June 2021, the SC, while protecting two Telugu (language) news channels from coercive action by the Andhra Pradesh government, emphasized defining the limits of sedition.
   • Reflects poorly on state apparatus: It portrays a very weak and feeble foundation of the elected government which is easily rattled by criticism and threat.
   • Historical bad performance: Several top freedom movement leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, were booked under the sedition law.
2. Judicial
   • Low Conviction Rates: It has very low conviction rates (3.3% in 2019 NCRB Data) and is seen as overkill; however, it causes ill repute and loss of dignity to even the accused.
   • Multiple Interpretations: The terms defining sedition are not defined properly and are vague, i.e., the term disaffection is defined as promoting enmity, the meaning of which is unclear.
   • Unnecessarily invoked: If one looks at the recent cases where the sedition charges have been invoked, most of them are fairly covered under other laws and provisions.
3. Social/Individual
   • Impacts whistle-blowers: Whistle-blowers who bring out essential information regarding illegal activities may be deterred by this act.
   • Curbs freedom: It can effectively curb the fundamental right to free speech as dissent may be misconstrued as sedition.
   • Societal Stigma: Even those accused and not proven guilty are often prone to violence and shaming by others in the society, thus tarnishing the image of individuals.

Judicial Pronouncements

• Tara Singh v State of Punjab (1950): In this case, the court held the section as unconstitutional as it was against the freedom of speech and expression.
• Ram Nandan v State of UP (1958): The Allahabad HC held that Section 124A imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech.
• Kedarnath v State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court observed that the sedition law must be narrowly interpreted.
• Balwant Singh and Another v State of Punjab (1995): The SC held that the casual raising of slogans once or twice by two individuals cannot be termed as Sedition.

• Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court clearly drew distinction between “Advocacy” and “incitement,” in which only incitement can be punished.
• Recent views of Supreme Court (2021): SC held that provisions of 124A (sedition) and 153 (promoting enmity between classes) of the IPC require interpretation, particularly on the issue of the rights of press and free speech.

Way Forward

• Distinction in crimes: Sedition cases arising from speech must be distinguished from those arising from seditious activities.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof must be upon those who claim to feel violated by the alleged seditious acts or speech.
• Leniency: It should at least be made a bailable offence, due to low conviction rates and high pendency; it should not be used as a way to harass a dissenter.
• Narrowing Definition: The definition of sedition should be narrowed down to include only the issues pertaining to the territorial integrity of India as well as the sovereignty of the country.
• Judicial Responsiveness: The higher judiciary should use its supervisory powers to sensitize the magistracy and police to the constitutional provisions protecting free speech.
• Police Awareness: The police officer must understand that sedition no longer means merely exciting “disaffection” against the government.
• Application with Caution: The use must be restricted only to genuine cases and with caution as it is prone to be misused.
• Penal Action on Frivolous complaints: Penal action must be taken against those who make false allegations only to harass others.
• Non-Cognizable: The offences should be made non-cognisable so that there is at least a judicial check on politically motivated complaints.
• Multi-Stakeholder Committee: Forming a committee involving Government and renowned civil society members while deciding cases.
• Bailable Exception: All speech-related offences should be made bailable offences.

Best Practices

• UK: Section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolishes sedition and seditious libel; however, it is still applicable to alien and non-British nationals.
• Indonesia: Sedition has been declared as “unconstitutional” in Indonesia, following in the footsteps of their Dutch colonial masters.
• USA: Under Section 2385 of the US Code, it is unlawful for anyone to knowingly teach/advocate the propriety of overthrowing the government by force. However, in respect for freedom of speech, this law is rarely enforced.