A Perusal of Sedition Laws — Peril or Potent?

10 Jul, 2019

ABSTRACT

In this writing, I will probe the laws of sedition in India to understand its need in this modern era of the developed and critically acclaimed stage of the right of freedom of expression and speech. The question tackled through this short piece is that is this draconian law still relevant in this transformational era. Even if valid, does the relevancy of such an ancient not matter when its existence and need are scrutinized? Is relevancy not a part of validity?

FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW

The law came into existence in the 1860s when Britain could not withstand the harsh upbraiding regarding their colonial rule over India and their slovenly ruling. Freedom fighters who raised their voice to upheave this country as an independent sovereign were imprisoned under this law¹.

To give a backcloth, the debates of the Constituent Assembly had come to a result of removing sedition from the constitution itself but they still retained the actual law in the Penal Code. But, the first amendment of the Constitution reinstated the position of sedition back in the Constitution with added force through two clumsy dimensions, friendly relations with foreign states and public order. The same grounds were criticised and opposed by the Constituent Assembly, particularly to walking towards a liberal path by drawing lines and critically analysing speeches, which are meant to develop the State and which meant to vilify the nation. The position of sedition was further cradled during the Indira Gandhi regime because of the tag of cognizable crime under the Criminal Code of Procedure.

But, as we all have consumed the current events disseminated through various media, from the Hathras incident to CAA to farmers’ protests to tweets about current situations of the nation, this law ad nauseam has been in use to curb the free speech of the citizens when they are raising their voice to express their concern. This law is being used bypassed-manner to silence the notes of voters of this nation who are demanding their basic needs be fulfilled.

STANCE OF VALIDITY: A SNOWBALL EFFECT OF KEDAR NATH VERDICT?

The Apex Court has been a driving force behind the evolution of this law and its question of validity. It demarcated the scope of free speech by using the phrase “security of or tend to overthrow a State” with respect to S. 124A in one landmark case². In another well-known case of Kedar Nath³, the real question was raised as a constitutional issue, the Court again sketched the scope of sedition laws by stating the distinction between phrases, “the Government established by law” and “the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration”. Further, in 1955, another transformative stance⁴ was taken by the court in which it cleared that mere raising of phrases cannot be a ground to bring up charges of sedition.

From the protection of the nation to the explanation of the definition of government through the eyes of citizens to a progressive analysis of excluding speeches that have non-inciteful effects, the Apex Court has been enhancing the blueprint of this law to yoke it consistently with the right to free speech and the need of criticism and sometimes, feedback in democracy.

However, in this techno-centric era where citizens use social media platforms to extensively connect, reach out to authorities and quote their emotions, can we, as a developing nation with a rich history of freedom struggle, use a law meant to silence our nation’s fathers to arrest the common population over tweets?

The Kedar Nath judgement used the expression “in the interest of public order” to give the status of valid constitutionality to S. 124A. But, the execution of the law has been the exact opposite, as we can see. If violence-inciting words that are uttered to overthrow or malign a nation is considered seditious and come under the purview of “in the interest of public order”, then why does the act of heavy scrutiny of the government’s action by its citizens not fall under the head of “in the interest of public order”? We need to understand the need to separate critical opprobrium that disrupts the public discourse from public discourse raising its arms and voices to censure and speak up about the government’s lack of decisiveness and de-routing from its basic mandate.

RELEVANCY AND VALIDITY: HAND-IN-HAND?

The question of whether the relevancy of an ancient law matters when its existence and need are scrutinized is an important one, particularly in the context of sedition laws in India. Sedition laws are not only ancient but were enacted during a time when India was under British colonial rule, and the aim was to suppress any form of dissent or opposition to the government. The question, therefore, arises as to whether such a law is still relevant in a modern and democratic India.

Versions of sedition laws still exist in parts of the world. To point out, the United Kingdom abolished laws of sedition in 2002 after huge censure from its public. A form of libel lies in the laws of the United States but is rarely invoked as compared to India, where such laws are not only misused to silence the concerns of the citizens but also the cases are increasing exponentially⁵ thereby, increasing the burden of courts with frivolous matters only set up for distraction purposes.

As long as validity goes, an important element of sedition laws is incitement to violence without which any matter brought to court holds no water. The validity, when pointing out the difference, is justifiable or well-grounded with reasons that mesh well with other laws and has a root in the basic foundation of the legislature. On the other hand, relevancy is a question of pertinence. Is this directly related to the matter? Is this connected to the chain of events? Is it necessary in the current discourse, how define relevancy in law?

Validity refers to the legal status of a law and whether it is constitutional and conforms to the requirements of due process. In contrast, relevancy pertains to whether a law is still necessary and useful in modern society. While a law may be valid, it may not necessarily be relevant. Thus, relevancy is a crucial factor in determining whether a law should continue to exist.

Journalists and human-right activists getting arrested around the nation while disseminating opinions and information to reach a wide readership and touch the minds of the general public is a backward somersault while we vowed to walk down the path of liberty. Does the seditious law have any relevance in a place where we fight against colonizers to give an identity of freedom and justice to this nation? Should we not consider the relevancy of such Draconian law while scrutinizing its validity in our society? And, the position of relevancy from the sight of people and the dimension of administration holds heavy importance while mass arrests have become a norm in times of resistance and criticism.

If we come down to basic philosophies, logic provides that to establish validity from one point to another, relevancy is essential. That is, the first point should be relevant to the premise of the second. The logical fallacy of aggrandizing mere speeches into stances that are anti-national or propaganda to topple a country is what debases sedition in this current situation. Combined with the element of weak administration and colouration of justice with political sentiments, the execution of the law is profligate towards our citizens, the legal system and our Preamble.

WAY FORWARD (WITH BACKWARD LAWS?)

Whenever there is a superior, in the wake of such a crisis, controlling the sufferer in the name of “peace”, there is shrouded an element of order. Peace, in law, is achieved by an administration wholeheartedly functioning for the public and if that fails, peace is awarded by the justice itself. If and when the sedition laws are abolished, the blot on the cloth is cleaned. Such practices tend to weave fear into the system to prevent citizens and common men and women, in general, to speak up. If from upholding our freedom fighters who carried the war on their shoulders with their legs chained by such a sedition law we shift towards the mass arrest of the general public and shutting down their cries, then that exhibits us running in the opposite of what direction we should be headed towards.

When a system like democracy can only thrive on throttle feedback, a serious need to separate and enunciate the difference between criticism to improve and a cry of hatred arises. Sedition, as a law, must be viewed as a separate provision specifically meant for imprisoning and punishing inciteful acts against the soul of the nation and should not be a subtext under the general right to free speech. A seditious label is not only a blot on the nation but also a discredit to the citizen about their place in their nation.

FOOTNOTES: