Opposing Sedition Law is Good Optics and Politics

Synopsis:

With Section 66A and Article 35A ended, the government should do the same for Section 124A. It would prevent harassment of dissent and uphold the right to free speech under Article 19 of the constitution.

Background:

• The Supreme Court (SC) had recently asked the Centre the rationale behind not scrapping the sedition law (S-124A of Indian Penal Code).
• The time given for providing rationale has now expired, and the center should now take a call on its scrapping.

Opinion of Court on Sedition:

• The SC believes that the sedition law has had a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.
• Further S-124A is a colonial vestige of a repugnant design to silence advocates of India’s right to self-determination.
• A concerned SC judge recently held law enforcement agencies guilty of hounding ‘dissidents’ using 124A in violation of guidelines set in legal stone to limit the potential for its misuse. 
• Lower courts have also wagged a censorious finger at state-level authorities for the same reason.

Why should the government abolish it?

• The recent Pegasus attack has put fresh allegations on it for assaulting civil liberties using insidious spyware.
• It will result in upholding the right of free speech under Article 19 of the constitution.
• It will showcase a progressive attitude of the government towards citizens and the constitution.
  • Acknowledgment of the overbearing nature of Section 66A and its decision to scrap the discriminatory Article 35A are some progressive steps taken in the past.
  • Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down by SC in 2015, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague” as it muzzled free speech on the internet.
  • Article 35A of the Indian Constitution was an article that empowered the Jammu and Kashmir state’s legislature to define “permanent residents” of the state and provide special rights and privileges to them.
• It will prevent harassment of opposition members in the future. The current government should understand that eventually, after some years, they would take the opposition seat and wouldn’t want to get harassed under sedition laws.