Unearthing the Roots of Sedition: Exploring Section 150
Written by: Srija Singh and Manik Tanwar
Abstract:
The proposed Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, which would supersede the Indian Penal Code from the colonial era, might expand the current sedition provision without any protections. Three recent events about the crime of sedition have taken place: the Home Minister declared the charge of sedition to be dropped; the Supreme Court suspended Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code; and the Law Commission of India advocated for the continuance of the offense. Nonetheless, Article 150 of the Act is still in place and has come under fire for being perceived as a tool for stifling opposition and criticism of the administration. In India, the sedition legislation has caused controversy since some believe it restricts freedom of speech and expression and stifles opposition. Over time, there has been a movement in the meaning of the law, leading to confusion about the issue.
_________________________________________________________________
Introduction
“Right to question the government is the essence of democracy; sedition should be shown the door as soon as possible.”
A colonial law known as “sedition” was used to frame Mahatma Gandhi and is still in effect even after 75 years of independence. Introduced to replace the Indian Penal Code of the colonial era, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill might expand the current sedition legislation without the safeguards that courts have put in place up to this point. There have been three significant advancements in the crime of sedition in recent times.[1] First, the Apex Court has suspended Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, in the 279th report, the Law Commission of India advocated keeping the offense of sedition on the books. Finally, while proposing the revised criminal law measures in the Lok Sabha, the Home Minister declared that the charge of sedition had been abolished.
A straightforward reading of the statute, however, revealed that, while the specific charge of “Sedition” has been abolished, the offense remains in a new variation. Clause 150, which considers “acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” illegal, has been added to the chapter on crimes against the state. This clause’s phrasing, however, substantially reflects the existing section 124A, as the following comparison will show:
Sedition: A Colonial Legacy
Section 124A intends to make it a crime to incite or try to incite hatred or contempt for the government constituted by law, as well as to stimulate or try to inspire disaffection towards it.
There is confusion and ambiguity since the sedition statute’s interpretation has evolved. Terms included in Section 124A, such as “disaffection,” may be read differently by the current government and applied to punish political opposition. Subjectivity is occasionally employed to assess whether remarks or actions amount to “public disorder.” Now, Home Minister Amit Shah has said that the sedition offense would be eliminated in the Bhartiya Naysay Sanhita Bill, but that assertion has been debunked because Section 150 does not properly repeal sedition.
Criticism
“Using sedition is like giving a carpenter a saw and telling him to cut a piece of wood, but instead he cuts the entire forest with it.”N.V. Ramana
Because it was added during the colonial era and has a detrimental effect on constructive criticism aimed at the government, this provision has drawn criticism. It is harsh because it curtails the freedom of speech and expression that is protected by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The historic Kedarnath case serves as an excellent illustration of how criticism directed at a political party in power at the center can nonetheless be considered seditious even when it lacks the criticism’s harmful tendencies. The clause also grants law enforcement organizations a great deal of latitude in making decisions.
Section 150: A new pathway for sedition
A serious blow to our country’s democratic history is Section 150 of the newly introduced Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita Bill. Even though Section 150 was emphasized as the part that eliminated the colonial accusation of sedition, Section 150, on the other hand, retains sedition while changing the nomenclature of the provision.
This law’s Section 150 has been amended to remove the inducement to violence test and replace it with a public order criterion, therefore giving the government more discretion in interpreting what constitutes seditionary activity. It is forbidden to engage in any activity that “excites or attempts to excite, secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities” under this article.
Furthermore, several phrases that have been used in Section 150 have not been defined, such as the term “subversive,” which has been used in the same way as the addition of “by use of financial means.” This demonstrates the attempts to construe sedition legislation more broadly. The bill also contains the phrase “encourages feelings of separatist activities,” which can be interpreted broadly given that the current government has frequently been accused of stifling its critics, as demonstrated by the cases of climate change activist Disha Ravi and former president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Student Union Kanhaiya Kumar.
In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar,[2] the Supreme Court ruled that the “government established by the law” is the embodiment of the state and that sedition is justified because it serves a particular purpose and that the state is the target of the offense’s degree of damage. Endangering “sovereignty, or unity and integrity of India” is defined in Section 150; hence, adding the word “India” broadens the definition of the crime and makes it less precise. Although “India” is listed in clause 150 as the target of injury, the clause is vague.
The new provision is much more stringent than the earlier one since the government has accepted the 22nd Law Commission Recommendations and the minimum imprisonment sentence is now increased from 3 years to 7 years, with the maximum being life imprisonment.
The validity of judicially incorporated safeguards under the idea of sedition is another concerning question raised by S. 150. The vague wording of Section 124A, particularly the use of the terms “hatred,” “contempt,” and “disaffection,” made protection necessary. Although S. 150 may at first seem like a move in the right direction, it is important to understand how legal safeguards for the crime of sedition have evolved before making any comments.
The terms employed in Section 124A of the IPC lend themselves to different interpretations, resulting in ambiguity and vagueness. This is evident from the Federal Court’s conflicting interpretations of the section in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor,[3] which interpreted the terms “hatred,” “contempt,” and “disaffection” narrowly to only include situations affecting public order, and several Privy Council decisions such as King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalero,[4] which interpreted the same words broadly to include mere arouse.
Aside from the fact that the name “sedition” has been eliminated, Section 150 of the new law keeps the definition of sedition in its original form, so the claim that it has been eliminated is essentially a token gesture.
A WAY FORWARD
The mens rea requirement in s. 150, which uses the phrase “purposefully or knowingly,” may be better than s. 124A IPC, although this is up for debate. To say that Section 124A does not need mens rea would be untrue. The terms “intention” and “knowledge” (or any derivatives thereof) are not included in Section 124A; however, this does not mean that there is a strict liability breach.
It is seen to be implicitly requiring the inclusion of the men’s rea element in the definition of the offense, barring any sign or statement to the contrary. Legally speaking, even using the phrase “purposefully or knowingly” does not elevate the situation above s. 124A. As Kedar Nath’s judgment proved, mens rea was always necessary under s. 124A.
In conclusion, imprecise or too broad definitions may result in the misapplication or abuse of the law, impairing the right to free speech and expression. Legislation should be specific enough to safeguard lawful dissent and peaceful political speech while specifically targeting seditious acts that endanger national security. It is essential to strike a balance between preserving fundamental rights and ensuring national security. However, it is crucial to make sure that sedition laws aren’t applied to stifle dissident opinions or political opposition. The bar for prosecution needs to be high, requiring unequivocal proof of a deliberate attempt to instigate violence or topple the government. This can lessen the likelihood that minorities or nonviolent political activists will be the focus of wrongful sedition legislation.
REFERENCES
· Rahul Tripathi, Government proposes to abolish sedition law, The Economic Times (Aug. 12, 2023), https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/government-proposes-to-abolish-sedition-law/articleshow/102659494.cms.
· (Sept. 9, 2023), https://p39ablog.com/2023/09/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-8-sedition-recast-implications-of-clause-150-of-the-bns-2023/.
· Times of India, scrap it: SC did well to place sedition before a constitution bench. This law, in any form, has no place (Sept. 14, 2023). https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/scrap-it-sc-did-well-to-place-sedition-before-a-constitution-bench-this-law-in-any-form-has-no-place/.
[1] S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, WP(C) 682/2021 order on 11 May 2022 (Supreme Court): “We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking s. 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.’ From the order dated October 31, 2022, it appears that the Attorney General also assured the Supreme Court that the Central Government is reconsidering the law about sedition and will abide by the May 11, 2022, order of the Supreme Court”, last accessed on August 30, 2023.
[2] 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6
[3] 1947 SCC OnLine PC 9
[4] 1947 SCC OnLine PC 9.
