INDIAN SEDITION LAWS DEMYSTIFIED !
What is Sedition?
Sedition is defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, in lay man terms it may be defined as a crime against the security of the state. It refers to the uttering or writing of words intended to bring the sovereign state into hatred or contempt, to urge disaffection against the Constitution or democratically elected Government, or the attempt to procure change in Government by unlawful means.
The offence under S. 124A termed as sedition is closely allied to treason i.e. an offence against the State. Many personalities and freedom fighters have been tried and punished under the said Section by the British. The main aim of this Section is to protect incitement of hatred against the Government but, one thing needs to be kept in mind that in a flourishing democracy it is very necessary to make a clear demarcating line between the sedition and the expressing of disaffection towards the Government or its activities. Therefore, the interpretation of the term sedition should be done in spirit of the constitution.
Sedition is often described as the offence whose end result is public disorder. In the case of Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, the Supreme Court described sedition “as disloyalty in action and all those activities which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead civil war, to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitutions of the realms, and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder.”
Viability and Validity of Sedition Laws in India
It is very often seen that people term the Section 124A as unconstitutional being violative of Right to Freedom of Free Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) but the provisions of this very Section are not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in the very landmark Kedar Nath case clearly stated that explanations to this Section make it very clear that criticism of public measure or comment on Governmental action, however worded, within reasonable limits and consistent with the fundamental right of speech and expression is not affected. It is only when the words have the intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in.
This Section requires two essentials-
1) Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2) Such act or attempt may be done by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation.
These particular ingredients shows that the offence does not talk about exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of actual disturbance, great or small. Further, it can also be inferred from the above said statements that disloyalty to Government established by law is not same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts undertaken by the Government, or its agencies, so as to improve the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of such acts by lawful and constitutional means i.e. by not invoking any hatred or discontentment against the lawfully established Government.
It has to be kept in mind that no right is absolute in nature and always comes with reasonable restrictions, therefore, Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression also involves certain limitations which is expressly mentioned in the Article 19 (2) itself which points out that this particular right can be curtailed when the security, integrity and sovereignty of India is in question. The relation between the Sedition laws and the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression can be understood with the help of Speech Act theory of Austin. According to Austin, some form of speeches or words in itself construe as an act itself and it is these words or speeches which are targeted by the sedition laws. Austin called these words as Speech Acts. For a Speech Act to have this effect, two conditions need to be met: the speaker has to occupy a certain position of authority, and the words that are uttered by that speaker have to occur in a particular context. His analysis depicts that these utterances have more force or power in it.
This theory of Austin can be better understood with the help of two case laws. Firstly, with the help of a US case law- United States v. Rahman. The case of Rahman is the recent and successful prosecution on the grounds of seditious conspiracy; secondly, Rahman was prosecuted solely on the grounds of his speech, as he did not perform any overt act in the concrete sense of the term, in furtherance of the conspiracy; thirdly, while his conviction was relatively uncontentious because a direct causal link was established between his advice and the acts carried out by his followers. Therefore, his conviction was affirmed by all the Appellate courts as considering his position and words used him which incited among his followers a sense of hatred against the Government. Secondly, the Naurang Singh case of 1986, proves the second element of Austin’s theory for having a particular context. In this case, the accused gave his speech to certain public wearing black clothes and turban and in course of his speech, he gave some exaggerated figures of death due to action of army in Punjab which incited the hatred among the people there. It was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that even though he didn’t gave a prima facie incitement speech but it could be easily be inferred from his speech about his intention of raising hatred against the Government. Therefore, his petition to quash the proceedings was rejected.
Another aspect of sedition law is importance to surroundings and circumstances which is often not taken into consideration and because of which the sedition laws are often into criticism. That’s why, the casual raising of slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India. Similarly, if in a case where there is a disturbed area and an ill speech is made, prima facedly, not intending to incite hatred but seeing background and other situations if such speech causes public unrest or disorder and caused disaffection against the Government, then in such case charge of sedition will be attracted.
Sedition laws- Need for Regulation
It is often seen that the Section 124A is criticised because of many reasons but one of the reasons involved is its formulation by the British Government during its imperial rule. It is contended that such a reason is not a viable one as though it is a law made by the British but still is applied by the Indian judiciary as per needs of our modern society with all due modifications and same was contended by the Kerala High court in a case.
Further, it is also contended by the critics of the sedition laws that a mature democracy should have the power to absorb such offensive words and speeches. They also contend that there is lack of a line of distinction between expression and speech which leads to lack of difference between expression of radical political position and a criminal incitement among which only the latter is amenable to punishment but just because of the lack of proper demarcation even the former has to suffer which is very deteriorative for a democracy. It is also stated by those who criticise these laws that they are of nature which restricts free speech in our country and are against the idea of absolute Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Very often, the demarcating line between political criticism of the Government and those causing disaffection against the Government is thin and often waiving.
In the various cases the courts have often tried to restrict the application the S. 124A of the IPC and have advocated for suppressing of this Section and alike Sections. Even the Supreme Court, in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, showed its concern over growing number of cases under this Section. The Hon’ble court stated that there has been various cases in which people are being charged of sedition even when essentials of it are not satisfied or fulfilled. Further, mechanical order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and to promote enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. Therefore, it is expected that the graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that liberty of a citizen is not likely interfered with.
Conclusion
After considering ample contentions, it can be said that Liberal objections to sedition laws have tended to overlook the harm that can be done by seditious libel as uttered by an authoritative religious figure or any other authority, construing such words as the mere expression of a subversive opinion. We often fail to understand that India is a land of various religious groups and linguistic groups and such laws or laws of alike nature are required for ensuring proper balance in the society. But at the same time it is also not disputed that regulated use of such laws is also very necessary, otherwise, it could lead to arbitrariness in its use which would be violative of Right to Freedom of Free Speech and Expression. Further, in the light of criticism and some ambiguity in the Section, the sedition laws need some minor reformation and judicial interpretation like Supreme Court should provide proper interpretation regarding on what basis the punishment given in the Section for sedition, ranging from three years to life imprisonment, should be given. We should try to understand that there is difference between political speech which is very necessary for communication and for flourishing of our vibrant democracy, or to change political institutions and on the other hand, the speech that attempts to bring about the change through violence and hatred. In this battle, sedition laws aims to deter the latter by penalising it along with proper precautions so that the former view is not compromised which is very essential for our growth and for being a progressive society.
About the Author
This article has been contributed by our guest author:
Sajal Awasthi, 2nd year BA LLB (hons.), School of Law, Christ University
