To Speak or Not to Speak

Sedition in its most basic form as defined by the Indian Constitution is “conduct or speech which results in mutiny against the authority of the state”. The colonial era law which comes under Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code has recently faced harsh criticism due to its misuse by the Indian Government and its subsidiaries.

The law has had a tainted history ever since it was introduced by Thomas Maculay in the 1870s as a solution to deal with Wahabi activities that posed a threat to the Colonial Government. Since then, the law has been used against Indians seeking freedom from the rule of the British and many liberators, including Mahatma Gandhi were arrested and charged with sedition. Gandhi further said that the law was “designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens” a statement that many argue has stood true even in today’s political scenario. After independence, the law has famously been used against those who accused the Congress of corruption and tyrannical rule.

In the 21st century, the Government has tried to show restraint with the Supreme Court restricting the use of the law to situations where there is “incitement to violence”; despite this, however, in 2014 alone, there were 47 sedition cases reported across nine states most of which had led to no violence in any form. This shows how the law seems like it is here to stay, despite so-called government attempts to restrain or abolish its misuse.

The reason the anti-sedition law has drawn so much attention in recent times is because for decades now, successive governments have used this antiquated section of the IPC to convict individuals such as cartoonists, bloggers, social activists and in fact, anyone critical of the standing government. For context, it is worth noting that among other penalties, those undergoing trial for sedition have to surrender their passports, are not eligible for government jobs, have to attend court as required and are expected to pay legal fees wherever appropriate. This combined with the maximum punishment of life imprisonment shows how powerful this law can be in exercising a government agenda.

The most appropriate solution would be to abolish the section along with other vaguely-worded, draconian laws such as the criminal defamation law and laws to curb hate speech and silent dissent. Even eminent lawyers such as Karuna Nundy have said “Sedition itself needs to enter the dustbin of oppressive legal history”.

Abolishing Section 124(A) would not only allow citizens greater freedom when speaking of their government but would allow the largest democracy in the world to flourish with honest public opinion without fear of legal action for voicing an opinion.

---

Written by Raghav Kapur

Edited by Urjashi Laha