Sedition law mustn’t trump basic rights

The State must be able to defend itself against internal and external aggression. But should such action come at the cost of constitutional rights?

Among the slew of colonial-era statutes that survive in India’s criminal law books today, sedition is among the most controversial. Drafted by the British government to kneecap the freedom struggle, the law was effectively used by the colonial administration to imprison Indian leaders on non-specific but sweeping charges. Though the law survived post-Independence, there has been a lot of discussion of late on its continued misuse, and on whether it should have any place in modern India.

Drafted by the British government to kneecap the freedom struggle, the sedition law was effectively used by the colonial administration to kneecap the freedom struggle (HT Photo)

In a historic order last year, the Supreme Court (SC) hit pause on the provision, ruling that the law was not in sync with the social milieu. Last week, however, the Law Commission recommended that the 153-year-old colonial law be retained, saying that repealing the provision could have adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country.

The Commission’s findings, which are not binding, go against the tenor of the SC’s order. When taking a final call, the government and top court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else (as evidenced by the police using section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped), that most countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, have repealed the law, and that data shows conviction rates under the provision often languish in single digits, underlining the scant evidence that underpins such charges.

The law commission’s recommendations clash with the apex court’s thrust on liberty and individual freedoms. It remains to be seen if this leads to the setting up of a Constitution Bench or whether the government takes a different view. The State must be able to defend itself against internal and external aggression but such action should never come at the cost of constitutional rights.