Chief Justice of India NV Ramana questioned Attorney General “This was the law used to silence Mahatma Gandhi. Do you think it is needed after 75 years of Independence”? - section 124A IPC

Recently the Supreme Court expressed its serious concern and criticised the continuation of Section 124A IPC (Sedition) in India.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana questioned Attorney General Venu Gopal  “This was the law used to silence Mahatma Gandhi. Do you think it is needed after 75 years of Independence”?

The Court orally observed that the power to misuse this law is enormous. It’s like giving a saw to a carpenter who cuts down the entire forest.

The law of Sedition is defined in section 124A of IPC and was introduced a d drafted by Macaulay in 1890.

It is defined as an offence against government which is committed when any person by words, either spoken or written or by signs or pictorial representation bring hatred or contempt or disaffection against government. 

Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under the law varies from imprisonment up to three years to a life term and fine. A person charged under this law can't apply for a government job. They have to live without their passport and must present themselves in the court as and when required.

One of the most vehement critics of the sedition law was K.M. Munshi who argued that such a draconian law is a threat to democracy in India. He argued that, “as a matter of fact the essence of democracy is criticism of Government.” It was due to his efforts and the persistence of the Sikh leader Bhupinder Singh Mann that the word sedition was omitted from the Constitution.

However, this law was reimposed by the very controversial First Amendment that was passed by the government headed by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

As per the Kedar Nath judgment in 1962, the sedition law was supposed to be applied in rare instances where the security and sovereignty of the country is threatened.

After the pronouncement in the case of Kedar Nath by the  Supreme Court, public disorder has been considered to be a necessary ingredient  of section 124A IPC by the courts. 

In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh  the court quashed the charges under the said section, as it was not established before the court that the appellant had done anything, which would threaten the existence of the Government, established by law or might cause public disorder.

In Nazir Khan & Ors. v. State of Delhi, the court reiterated this principle by stating: Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers  all those practices which excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder as sedition.

The data provided by National Crime Records Bureau indicates that sedition cases have risen from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019, a massive 163 percent jump. 

Legally speaking, one of the main problems with the sedition law is that it is poorly defined. The terms “bring into hatred or contempt” or “attempt to excite disaffection” can be interpreted in many ways and this empowers the police and government to harass innocent citizens who are across the fence from them.

This issue was recently highlighted by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while restraining the Andhra Pradesh government from taking adverse action against two Telugu news channels booked under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Chandrachud remarked, “Everything cannot be seditious. It is time we define what is sedition and what is not.” 

In another important case (PIL filed against Farooq Abdullah, the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir), Justice Chandrachud stated, “Expression of views which is dissent and different from the opinion of the government cannot be termed seditious.”

Sedition law can be used in positive as well as negative sense.

Sedition law helps to combat anti national , secessionist and unnecessary chaotic terrorist elements. 

It protects the elected government from being overthrown by violence and illegal means. 

At the same time , sedition law restrict the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. 

The sedition law is widely misused as a tool to dilute and prosecute political dissent. 

India ratified its international covenant on Civil and political rights in 1979 which protected the rights of freedom of speech and expression internationally. However the arbitrary use of Sedition law  causes the violation of the international commitment made by India.

The court has been categorical in expressing that every criticism does not mount to sedition and the real intent of the speech must be considered before puting seditious intent to an act. 

In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab,  Court refused to penalise casual raising of slogans few times against thetate by two persons. It was reasoned that raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other groups.

The aforesaid judicial pronouncements have been discussed to get an idea as to what amounts to seditious acts. In the light thereof, it could be stated that unless the words used or the actions in question do not threaten the security of the State or of the public; lead to any sort of public disorder which is grave in nature, the act would not fall within the ambit of section 124-A of IPC.

The United Kingdom abolished sedition laws ten years back citing that he country did not want to be quoted as an example of using such draconian laws. Given the fact that the section itself was introduced by the British to use as a tool to oppress the Indians, how far it is justified to retain s.124A in IPC?