Sedition and its roots in rudeness as an offence

Source- The post is based on the article “Sedition and its roots in rudeness as an offence” published in “The Hindu” on 27th May 2023.

Syllabus: GS2- Polity

Relevance– Issues related to offensive speech and sedition

News- On March 30, the Lahore High Court annulled the offence of ‘sedition’ in the Pakistan Penal code.

Around the same time in India, the police registered a series of complaints in Delhi and in Ahmedabad, and also arrested several people, for posting anti-government posts.

How does the logic of sedition under section 124 influence our legal apparatus?

Section 124A seeks to criminalise words that bring “into hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” towards the government. A challenge is pending before the Supreme Court. Yet, the logic of the law of sedition still survives.

Pakistan uses the law of blasphemy. India, which is secular and does not criminalise blasphemy. But, it has punishment provisions for hurting sentiments. The state recently arrested actor Chetan Kumar for his tweet on Hindutva.

Its defining logic has already transplanted itself into several different provisions of law that criminalise speech.

How social relationships have an impact on our understanding of offensive speech?

Socially, we have always understood badtameezi(rudeness) not in terms of the contents of speech, but rather in terms of who spoke and to whom. An older person may crticise a teenager but the badtameezi occurs only when the teenager answers back.

This understanding of offensive speech applies in the same hierarchical way to all social relationships. It’s always the security guard, the domestic worker, or the street vendor who is badtameez.

Modernity and capitalism have long been imagined breaking such hierarchies. But it is not true in substance.

How is the understanding of offensive speech reflected in power relations?

The state through its officials has appropriated a top position in hierarchy of social positions. Thus, the lowest state functionary addresses the citizen in the most commanding voice, as if it was natural.

Law-and-order issues arise only when the policeman is challenged. But, it never arises in the policeman’s own arbitrary commands to the citizenry.

In present times, this relationship of power is more explicitly extended to political power. The use of law often shows these social-political relations of power. It is increasing now.

How is understanding of offensive speech reflected in the legal system?

The practice of prosecuting speech offences is influenced by an understanding that ‘offensive speech’ emanates from those who are either inferior in established social/political hierarchies.

Consequently, offences are framed mostly against those who challenge political or social power and its attendant narratives. In the event, prosecution usually follows the logic of badtameezi, or sedition. It focuses mostly on content.

India has entrenched hierarchical relations, most prominently in the form of caste. Our understanding of violence is influenced by this understanding.

Speech is made prosecutable depending on whom it targets. It points to the entangled relationship of law and society. Prosecutors attack certain speech as grave and damaging to someone’s reputation while tolerating other violent speech as innocuous.

What are some facts about the Supreme Court pronounced judgement in the Media One case?

which addresses the logic of sedition. It struck down the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s decision to not renew the broadcast licence for the channel on grounds that it was a threat to national security.

The Court said that the critical views on policies of the government cannot be termed anti-establishment. The use of such a terminology represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.

The action of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting by denying security clearance to a media channel produces a chilling effect on freedom of speech, and on press freedom.

The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socio-economic policy to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy.

The state is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law. National security claims cannot be made out of thin air.