It’s been roughly five months since the Supreme Court paused the colonial-era sedition law, made infamous in recent decades by its increasingly arbitrary and unjustified use on ordinary citizens by governments of all political and ideological hues. At the time, the Union government said it was reviewing the 152-year-old provision, but since then, there has been little detail of the exercise put out in the public domain. On Monday, the government hinted that some changes were in the offing, perhaps
It’s been roughly five months since the Supreme Court paused the colonial-era sedition law, made infamous in recent decades by its increasingly arbitrary and unjustified use on ordinary citizens by governments of all political and ideological hues. At the time, the Union government said it was reviewing the 152-year-old provision, but since then, there has been little detail of the exercise put out in the public domain. On Monday, the government hinted that some changes were in the offing, perhaps as soon as in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. Attorney general R Venkatramani told a bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit that the government is deliberating on the issue and that some change could be expected before the next parliamentary session. This is significant and perhaps needs to be seen in consonance with the announcement by Union home minister Amit Shah last week that the Centre was planning to introduce changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Parliament soon.
Considered by legal experts as among the vaguest of penal provisions, Section 124A was introduced by the British to stymie the freedom struggle and imprison Indian leaders on non-specific but sweeping charges. Unfortunately, that proclivity to use the provision for intimidation has continued unabated in independent India. Conviction rates stagnate in low single-digits, underlining that many cases are malafide and have little material evidence to back up the proceedings. The top court, in a landmark decision in 1962, sought to hem in the scope of the sedition law by insisting that any offending speech or action needed to tend to incite public disorder. But successive administrations blithely ignored these guardrails, instead wielding the provision as a speech-muzzling tool.
Yes, there is an undeniable requirement for the State to defend itself against internal and external aggression. But such restrictions must be reasonable, and cannot morph into an all-encompassing statute that gives governments the power to axe any speech it deems unfavourable. Such tendencies are not only antithetical to the ideals of a free democracy, they contradict the principles India’s freedom fighters and founders held dear. People and officials reviewing the law must keep in mind that many nations — including the United Kingdom — have got rid of the sedition law without any tangible threats to their national security cropping up, and resist the temptation to merely rejig the provision, instead of repealing it. Mere tweaks won’t do. The sedition law must go.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website