The law of sedition is unconstitutional

Source: The Hindu

Relevance: Sedition is important to protect the national interest. On the other hand, misuse of this provision will hamper the Fundamental Rights of individuals.

Synopsis: There is an urgent need to review the Kedar Nath judgment on sedition law.

Background:

• In Vinod Dua’s case (2021), the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the law of sedition upheld in Kedar Nath Singh (1962).
• The Kedar Nath judgment upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
• The court held that only writings or speeches which incite people to violence against the Government will come within the ambit of sedition.

Why Kedarnath judgment needs a review?

• Firstly, the Supreme Court’s view in Kedar Nath is consistently being ignored.
  • Citizens of all ages have been charged with sedition for criticizing government authorities.
  • For instance, the recent Lakshadweep case.
• Secondly, section 124A of the IPC clearly violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Further Kedarnath judgment opens the door for misuse by making it conditional.
  • It says that ‘only when the words written or spoken etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder’ the law steps in.
  • So, if a policeman thinks that a cartoon has the pernicious tendency to create public disorder, he will arrest that cartoonist.
  • It is the policeman and law enforcement machinery who would decide whether a person’s behaviour was seditious.
• Thirdly, section 124 A is not a reasonable restriction.
  • Accused under this section does not get protection under Article 19(2) on the ground of reasonable restriction.
  • Sedition as a reasonable restriction was included in the draft constitution but was deleted during the adoption of the Constitution.
• Fourth, this law was enacted by the British colonial government with the sole objective of suppressing all voices of Indians.
  • In the Bangobasi case in 1891, Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case in 1897 and 1908, and Mahatma Gandhi’s case in 1922, it was held that a mere comment has the potential to cause disaffection towards the government.
  • Justice Arthur Strachey in Tilak’s case had made it absolutely clear that even attempts to cause disaffection would attract the provision.
  • These arguments do not stand valid after the adoption of the constitution.
  • However, SC adopted the reasoning given by the Federal Court in Niharendu Dutta Majumdar vs Emperor in 1942. In which it was held that the gist of the offense of sedition is a public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public disorder.
• Lastly, this law should be removed for being unconstitutional, but the SC judgment has softened it.
  • The Supreme Court emphasized the words ‘public order’ used in Article 19(2) and this made the offense of sedition constitutionally valid.

People have the right to criticize the government, which is part and parcel of democracy. Hence, the law of sedition which penalizes people for criticizing the government should be declared unconstitutional.

Terms to know

What is sedition?