Sedition

Sedition: - A veto against ‘Dissent’ and ‘criticism’
Mukul Kumar & Devjeet Gautam1**
Introduction
In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter SC), “Dissent is the safety valve of
democracy. If dissent is not allowed, then the pressure cooker may burst”. A democracy ensures its
citizens a bundle of rights which include the right to equality, right to life, and right to peaceful protest,
dissent, and criticism. It won’t be incorrect to say that right to dissent holds the apex spot in the
hierarchy of rights. To ensure smooth functioning of democracy, dissent and criticism are pivotal.
Even the constitution of India, under article 19(2)2 renders its citizen with the right to assemble and
protest peacefully. But, the present scenario narrates a different story. Now, if you raise your voice
against the established rulers, you may end up being behind bars. The current state of affairs in the
largest democracy in the world is crippled and handicapped by the act of sedition. Even a mere
criticism of govt. is scrutinized through the lens of sedition.
Decoding the sedition law

Section 124(A)3, a draconian colonial relic that still prevails in the Indian statute. It was drafted by
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1833, to curtail voices raised against the British regime. Initially, it
was used against the revolutionary freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak for his writings against
colonial rule in his newspaper ‘Kesari’. The sole purpose of this law was to curb and narrow down the
dissent of the Indian freedom struggle and maintain the centralization of authority in the hands of the
crown. Mahatma Gandhi was also charged with sedition and in response to this, he quoted, “Section
124A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC
designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”4. It is to be noted that at the time of the colonial era,
Indians were the subjects of British governance and not independent citizens, but today we are an
independent citizen of a republic nation guided by a written constitution. Citizens now have a
fundamental right to dissent and criticize the loopholes of the governance which may result in
jeopardizing the fundamental values of the nation.
Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that, “Whoever by words, either spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in
India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine”.5 The language of sedition
law is ambiguous and overbroad. It restricts the freedom of expression on the grounds of national
security. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) 6 has
imposed limits on the use of this law and has made incitement to violence a necessary element to
convict a person. In this landmark judgment, a constitution bench held that criticizing the government
“in strong terms” or “very strong speech or using very strenuous words in writing” cannot be
considered seditious. But despite SC directions, police incessantly and unnecessarily file sedition
charges even, where it is not required.
The trend of criminalizing dissent

According to a senior advocate in the Indian Supreme Court, Collin Gonsalves, “The government are
used to be treated like a God. Currently, people are openly opposing and articulating resistance. But
1
** 2nd year B.A LL.B (Hons.) students of Allahabad University.
2
Indian Constitution 1950, Art 19 cl 2
3
Indian Penal code , sec 124 cl A (1860)
4
Shariq us Sabah, Sedition Law: Crushing Dissent in India since 1833, cjp, (Sep 07, 2018), https://cjp.org.in/sedition-law-
crushing-dissent-in-india-since-1833/
5
Indian Penal Code, Sec 124 cl A (1860)
6
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0074/1962
no matter how extreme the reaction or resistance is in words or sloganeering, it requires actions and
not just words to be booked under sedition.7” data from past and the current statistics, clearly depicts
that sedition law has been misused blatantly against the peaceful expression and rightful dissent of
citizens. This law has been slapped against public intellectuals, scholars, students, authors, civil rights
activists, and a bunch of eminent figures.
According to the report of the national crime Record Bureau, 47 sedition cases were reported in 2014
alone, across nine states. Many of these registered cases did not indulge any violence or incitement
to violence. Despite 58 arrests under this case, the govt. managed to convict only one person.8
A long episodes is highlighting a trend that has caused serious concern in recent times. In September
2001, a cartoonist name Amit Trivedi was apprehended after a complaint stating his cartoons, a
mockery to the constitution, and national emblem. But, later the charges were dropped considering
widespread condemnation and public dissent.9
As per the data compiled by an independent portal, Article 14, almost 10,938 people have been
accused of the archaic law over the last ten years. 10 The reports and stats indicate that about 519
sedition cases were filed under the regime of the current ruling govt. over six years, as compared to
the tenure of UPA-2 govt. where about 279 cases were filed between 2010 to 2014. Not being so
political, but these databases indicates that sedition is being misused unabashedly in the present
ruling govt. as compared to previous governments.11
Pressing call to scrap the colonial relic

Seven decades to freedom and irony is that India is still governed by colonial laws. During the British
regime sedition was used to repress the freedom movement, to bury the voices raised against the
tyranny of colonialism. But, it is deplorable and disheartening to see that the government of free India
continues to misuse this law for the very purpose for which the colonial government used it. In the
year 1951, the then prime minister of India Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru designated sedition as “Obnoxious
and highly objectionable one in the body of law”. In the current time frame, India is dealing with one of
the longest protests in history in the form of ‘farm protest’. Farmers are dissenting against the three
contentious farm laws passed by the parliament about 6 months ago. But what recently came to the
limelight is the arrest of Disha Ravi, a climate change activist, to incite violence through a document
shared by her on social media. She was charged with sedition and incarcerated. As per a report,
about 6 sedition cases have been filed during the farm protest. The arrest of Disha Ravi without any
concrete evidence to prove sedition depicts a reflection of government paranoia. Justice Dharmendra
Rana of the Patiala House Court granted bail to Disha Ravi and rejected the purported evidence
presented by the Delhi Police against the activist as “scanty and sketchy”. In the case of Disha Ravi,
one cannot find an iota of evidence pointing out that document shared by her in any way incited
violence. In the case of Balwant Singh and Anr vs State of Punjab (1995), the SC observed that
“advocating revolution or advocating even violent overthrow of the state, does not amount to sedition
unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to ‘imminent’
violence”12.
The Supreme Court of India, through its various judgments has mentioned criteria to determine an act
as seditious. Chanting a slogan or being a member of a banned organization does not tag a person
with sedition. One of such landmark judgment is Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam (2011). The Hon’ble
SC observed that “mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person unless he
resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to violence.”13
7
Cheena Kapoor, India: Sharp rise in invoking sedition law to curb dissent, Analdau Agency, (Feb 10,2020),
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/india-sharp-rise-in-invoking-sedition-law-to-curb-dissent/1729727
8
Soutik Biswas, Why India needs to get rid of its sedition law, BBC News, Aug. 29, 2016.
9
Soutik Biswas, supra 8
10
Sumedha pal, jail vs conviction : 65% of total sedition cases filed under Modi regime, UAPA conviction rate low at 2.2%,
NEWS CLICK, (Feb 13, 2021), https://www.newsclick.in/Jail-Conviction-65%25-Total-Sedition-Cases-Filed-Under-Modi-
Regime-UAPA-Conviction-Rate-Low-2.2%25
11
Sumedha Pal, supra, 10
12
Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., MANU/SC/1601/1994
13
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam, MANU/SC/0096/2011
Ironically the tool constructed by the British against Indians is still surviving in India but in Britain, the
sedition law was scrapped down in 2009. The law commission of Britain recommended the abolition
of the country’s sedition law and eventually, the recommendation was carried out in 2009 and sedition
law was dumped into the pages of history. It’s high time for India to act in the right direction and
understand that colonial-era legislation has no place in a modern democracy. The blatant misuse of
this law is fairly clear and even various law commission and court rulings have indicated that
scrapping this law is a need of an hour.
Conclusion
Dissent and criticism are fundamental to democracy. If we have a right to vote then we also have a
right to oppose. The sedition law is too broadly defined and is prone to misuse by authorities to
repress activism and fair criticism and that’s why the law deserves to be scrapped. As long as the law
of sedition exists, the possibility of the complete accomplishment of civil liberties for any person
remains bleak. As observed by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), “when
it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is paramount
significance under our constitutional scheme”. Every individual has a birth right to express against the
wrong done to him or her. But these draconian laws seize this right and make the very foundation of
democracy vulnerable.

Sedition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sedition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sedition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sedition: - A veto against ‘Dissent’ and ‘criticism’

Mukul Kumar & Devjeet Gautam1**

Decoding the sedition law

The trend of criminalizing dissent

Pressing call to scrap the colonial relic

You might also like