{"id":183,"title":"Section 124A- Deciphering the law of Sedition in India","category":"15","content":"

<\/p>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

WHY IN THE NEWS?<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

 <\/p>\r\n

    \r\n
  • Recently, the Govt. sought more time to submit its written statement to petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

     <\/p>\r\n

    HISTORICAL BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

     <\/p>\r\n

      \r\n
    • It was enacted during the 17th<\/sup> century in England. It was believed by the lawmakers that only good opinions of the government should survive, as bad opinions were detrimental to the government and monarchy.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
    • It was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay. However, it was omitted, when the Indian penal code (IPC) was enacted in the year 1860.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
    • Later on, an amendment was introduced by Sir James Stephen in the year 1870 and Section 124A was introduced in IPC.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
    • It was one of the harsh laws which were enacted to stifle any voice of dissent.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

       <\/p>\r\n

      CURRENT SCENARIO OF SEDITION LAW<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

       <\/p>\r\n

        \r\n
      • Section 124A of the Indian penal code deals with Sedition law. The section reads as “any person 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”<\/em><\/span><\/li>\r\n
      • Disaffection also includes ‘disloyalty and feelings of enmity. However, it is notable that comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection don’t amount to an offense.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

         <\/p>\r\n

        PUNISHMENT AND EFFECTS OF SEDITION<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

         <\/p>\r\n

          \r\n
        • It is a non-bailable offense, punishment is provided under section 124A, which ranges from imprisonment up to 3 years to a life term, to which a fine may be added.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
        • A person charged under sedition law is barred from a government job. Further, they have to live without their passport and they are bound to produce themselves in the court whenever required.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

           <\/p>\r\n

          LANDMARK CASES RELATED TO SEDITION LAW<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

           <\/p>\r\n

          PRE- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

           <\/p>\r\n

            \r\n
          • In the case of Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose<\/strong> (1891), Jugendra Bose wrote an article and criticized the age of consent Act, 1891. This act of Bose was taken as disobedience towards the government. However, later he was released on bail and his case was dropped.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
          • Trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)<\/strong>. Tilak had published the celebration report as “Shivaji’s Utterances” in his dailies Kesari and Mahratta. In this case, an attempt to excite feelings of enmity against the government was also brought under the ambit of Section 124A of the IPC. Tilak was held guilty and he was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
          • Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1908).<\/strong> Tilak published two articles in Kesari, titled “The Country’s Misfortune”, and “These Remedies Are Not Lasting”, which were published on 12th May 1908, and on 9th June 1908 respectively. Under the new act of sedition, he was sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
          • Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922).<\/strong> He published an article in his newspaper, ‘Young India’. He was charged for “Bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government established by law in British India”. He was imprisoned for six years for his articles in his newspaper, ‘<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

             <\/p>\r\n

            POST- CONSTITUTIONAL CASES<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

             <\/p>\r\n

              \r\n
            • Supreme court in the judgment of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) comprising of <\/strong>K. Mukherjea, M.C. Mahajan, M. Patanjali Sastri, Sudhi Ranjan Das, and Saiyid Fazl Ali, JJ. & in the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras(1950)<\/strong> comprising of H.J. Kania, C.J., Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea and Sudhi Ranjan Das held that a law that restricts speech on the ground that it would disturb public order is unconstitutional. Further, it was also observed by the court that disturbing the public order will mean nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow. These decisions by the court laid to the first constitutional amendment, where article 19(2) was amended and “undermining the security of the State” was replaced with “in the interest of public order”.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
            • In the year 1962, in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar<\/strong>, a constitutional bench comprising B.P. Sinha, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, J.R. Mudholkar, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and S.K. Das, JJ. Supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the Sedition law. However, its application was limited to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
            • In 1995, in the judgment of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab,<\/strong> the accused was prosecuted for the sedition as he was engaged in the sloganeering in favor of an independent Sikh majority state in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. A two-judge bench laid by Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin JJ. gave the judgment in the favour of the accused and observed that since the speech in question did not lead to any disturbance of public order, and was not likely to incite any violence in the minds of the target audience, therefore it did not amount to sedition. Merely sloganeering didn’t amount to sedition.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

               <\/p>\r\n

              CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATE<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

               <\/p>\r\n

                \r\n
              • The assembly didn’t agree to include the sedition in the constitution.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
              • It was felt by the members that, it would curtail freedom of speech and expression.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
              • It was argued that this law can be used as a weapon to suppress the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

                 <\/p>\r\n

                LAW COMMISSION REPORT<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

                 <\/p>\r\n

                  \r\n
                • The Law Commission of India, in its Consultation Paper on “Sedition”,<\/em> published on August 30, 2018, remarked that although the offense of sedition is essential to protect the national integrity. However, it should not be used as a tool to curb free speech.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

                   <\/p>\r\n

                  ARGUMENTS IN THE FAVOR OF SEDITION LAW<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

                   <\/p>\r\n

                    \r\n
                  • It works against the terrorist, anti-national elements which work against the interest of the nation.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                  • It keeps an eye on the contempt of the government.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                  • It helps in the stability of the elected government.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

                     <\/p>\r\n

                    ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SEDITION LAW<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

                     <\/p>\r\n

                      \r\n
                    • It is a law since the colonial period, thereby it was used to suppress the voice of the public, and even after the independence govt. uses this provision against the freedom of speech and expression.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                    • Merely a descent opinion from the government doesn’t amount to sedition.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                    • Britain had repealed the sedition act in the year 2009, but India still constitutes this.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                    • This provision is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

                       <\/p>\r\n

                      RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN SEDITION LAW<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

                       <\/p>\r\n

                        \r\n
                      • In the case of Shreya Singhal v. UOI, (Criminal No. 167 of 2012), Police arrested two women for posting <\/strong>allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook regarding the shutting down of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. The bench comprising of Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. held that “Mere advocacy or discussion is not sedition.”<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                      • In February 2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court protected Congress leader Shashi Tharoor and six other senior journalists.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                      • In June 2021, the Supreme Court had not merely protected two Telugu news channels from coercive action by the Andhra Pradesh Government but have also emphasized the limitation of sedition. A special bench headed by Justice D Y Cyhandrachud observed that “Everything cannot be seditious. It is time we define what is sedition and what is not. Further, two other judges namely justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat observed that “We are of the view that the ambit and parameters of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A (promoting enmity between classes) and 505 (statements creating or promoting enmity) of the IPC would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news, information and the rights, even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation,”<\/em><\/span><\/li>\r\n
                      • In July 2021, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court, that sought to relook into the sedition law. The court in the case ruled that “a statute criminalizing expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable<\/em><\/strong> restriction on<\/strong> the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19<\/strong> <\/strong>(1)(a)<\/strong> and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/li>\r\n
                      • In May 2022, in the case of SG Vombatkere v. Union of India, A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and<\/strong> <\/strong>Hima Kohli observed that the <\/strong>proceedings under Section 124A to be kept in abeyance till the government's exercise of reviewing Section 124A is complete. Further, the bench also asked the government not to continue the investigation or take coercive steps in all pending proceedings under the provision till the government's exercise is complete. The bench in his order observed that \"We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over”. <\/em><\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n

                         <\/p>\r\n

                        NATIONAL CRIME RECORD BUREAU REPORT<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\r\n

                         <\/p>\r\n

                          \r\n
                        • According to National Crime Record Bureau, the cases under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code have been increased in a very significant way. It has raised by 160%, between 2016 and 2019, while the conviction rate for such offenses dropped from 33.3% to 3.3.% for the same period.<\/span><\/li>\r\n
                        • As per the NCRB report, Bihar has topped the list of states with having maximum sedition cases, from 2010 to 2020. A total number of 168 cases were filed in Bihar, followed by Tamil Nadu, where 139 cases were filed, Uttar Pradesh with 115 cases, Jharkhand with 62, Karnataka with 50, and Odisha with 30 cases.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","metaKeys":"null","metaDescription":"null","image":"https:\/\/s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com\/benby.images\/images\/xC0agQejBmlcTyQ7GDImwy1yROTYUrxPaHcXwdCE.png","seoTitle":"null","status":1,"tags":"Law Optional","subjects":"law optional","pdflink":"null","youtubelink":"null","publishdate":"2022-05-14","created_at":"2022-05-14T01:00:02.000000Z","updated_at":"2022-11-01T09:08:49.000000Z","canonical":"https:\/\/beandbyias.com\/","seo_url":"section-124a-deciphering-the-law-of-sedition-in-india"}