4 Ways to Think about Sedition and JNU
The happenings in JNU in the last couple of months have sparked a remarkable dialogue in our country. I can think of no other instance in recent times that has invoked such passion and sparked the kind of debate we are having right now. This nation is far from a consensus, with the entire episode bringing to light bitter divisions and value systems that quite often come in conflict with each other.
At the heart of the matter is a legal issue: does the sedition law have a place in a democracy, or is it a legitimate restriction on free speech? The present debate is likely to set precedents (legal and cultural) to chart the course of how the right to expression will find expression in our society, so it is worth our while to carefully think through it.
Thinking about the issue and going through the various perspectives, I came up with a framework which gives four ways to think about the entire matter. Nearly everything I’ve read falls in one of these categories. Though there might be nuances that wouldn’t fit neatly in any of these compartments; it is still an interesting framework which we can begin to examine the issue.
Here are four ways to think about sedition and JNU —
- Charging Kumar and others is a reasonable interpretation of a reasonable law.
- Charging Kumar and others is an unreasonable interpretation of a reasonable law.
- Charging Kumar and others is a reasonable interpretation of an unreasonable law.
- Charging Kumar and others is an unreasonable interpretation of an unreasonable law.
A reasonable interpretation of a reasonable law: Sedition is a reasonable restriction on free speech. In a society as volatile as ours, some reasonable restrictions are necessary and the actions of Kumar and others can reasonably be construed to be seditious.
An unreasonable interpretation of a reasonable law: The sedition law is a legitimate restriction on speech, but the actions of the students in JNU do not constitute sedition, as it was unaccompanied by an immediate and credible threat of violence. The sedition law, as it has come to be interpreted over the years, is reasonable and should stay in the books, or at best, be explicated clearly, to prevent misuse.
A reasonable interpretation of an unreasonable law: The sedition law has no place in our democracy, and is an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on speech. Considering the facts of the case, however, the actions of the students constitute sedition as the law presently finds expression in our books and in our current system and practise of law.
An unreasonable interpretation of an unreasonable law: The sedition law constitutes a grave violation of free speech, should be done away with or overhauled completely. In any case, if we study how courts have decided matters over the years, the present circumstances do not warrant Kumar and others to be charged under sedition.
Where do you stand, and why?
(The author, Ujwal Batra, works in CCS Academy and is the editor of the blog Spontaneous Order.)
