Sedition Act: Section 124A of the IPC, Misuse of Section 124A of IPC, Maharashtra curbs criticism of politicians

Contents Section 124A of the IPC History Definition of Sedition under Section 124A of the IPC Kedarnath vs The State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955) Notable cases Article 19 in The Constitution of India Maharashtra curbs criticism of politicians Notable judgments Conclusion

Section 124A of the IPC

“Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is unconstitutional, draconian and should be got rid of.” Critically analyze the statement.

• Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code covers sedition.
• [Sedition = conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state or monarch]
• Section 124A goes beyond the concept of ‘reasonable restriction on right to speech’.
• It is now widely used by the executive and political establishments to silence or discipline critics.

History

• It did not form part of the IPC originally, when it was enacted in 1860
• In 1870 it was inserted by the IPC (Amendment) Act.
• This provision was later on replaced by the present Section 124A by an amending Act of 1898.
• The difference between the old Section 124A and the present one is that in the former the offence consisted in exciting or attempting to excite feelings of “disaffection”, but in the latter “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt the Government of India” has also been made punishable.
• The main reason behind the continuation of Sedition act after independence was to prevent the misuse of free speech that would be aimed at inciting violence.

Definition of Sedition under Section 124A of the IPC

• “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.”
• Explanation-1: The expression “disaffection (dissatisfied with those in authority and no longer willing to support them)” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. [basic idea is to prevent misuse of right to free speech by anti-social elements]
• Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation (strong moral disapproval) of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alteration (change in character, appearance, or composition) by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. [This explanation clears states that sharp criticism doesn’t come under sedition]
• Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the government, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section [This explanation clears states that sharp criticism of government policy and administrative action doesn’t come under sedition]

Kedarnath vs The State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955)

• The Supreme Court came very close to hold this provision unconstitutional in Kedarnath vs The State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955).
• The court, in this case, considered two possible interpretations of this provision.
• It held that if sedition is understood to mean incitement of disorder or tendency or likelihood of public disorder or reasonable apprehension thereof, the section will lie within the ambit of permissible legislative restrictions mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression. [In simple terms, if someone tries to incite violence by misusing right to free speech, then his or her actions amount to sedition]
• If, on the other hand, it is to be held that even without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance of law and order by the use of words, written or spoken, which merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against the government the offence of sedition is complete, then such an interpretation would make the section unconstitutional. [In simple terms, if someone tries to create dissatisfaction against the government without inciting violence, then his or her actions will not amount to sedition]
• In very short, as long as there is no incitement to violence, there is no sedition.

Notable cases

• Mahatma Gandhi, then serving as editor of Young India was arrested and tried under charges of sedition in 1922. During his trial Gandhi stated, “Section 124 A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.
• In 2010, writer Arundhati Roy was sought to be charged with sedition for her comments on Kashmir and Maoists. (There is nothing wrong in having an opinion as long as it doesn’t incite violence)
• On 10 September 2012, Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, was sent to judicial custody on charges of sedition over a series of cartoons against corruption. (His actions did not incite any violence and act was misused clearly to suppress criticism)

Article 19 in The Constitution of India

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.
All citizens shall have the right

• to freedom of speech and expression;
• to assemble peaceably and without arms;
• to form associations or unions;
• to move freely throughout the territory of India;
• to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
• omitted
• to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Maharashtra curbs criticism of politicians

• The guidelines in a resolution issued by Maharashtra government say “criticism in this form, which may cause disaffection with, or enmity and disloyalty to, the Centre or the State government will be treated as sedition”.
• So here, the government has clearly misused the act to suppress any form of descent or criticism.

Notable judgments

• Court rejected sedition charges against Mr. Trivedi, reiterating that the charge of sedition under Section 124 A of the IPC could not be invoked to penalize criticism of the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of government measures to improve or alter them by lawful means.
• It has maintained that sedition was applicable on a case-to-case basis, if there was a clear and present danger of violence or a threat to public order.

Conclusion

• Recent examples have proved that the law is highly prone to misuse and it is in conflict with established democratic principles.
• Section 124A would have had to be struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(a).
• The Supreme Court, being the protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens may step in now and declare Section 124A unconstitutional.

About Unknown

PMF IAS. Helping aspirant