ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 27th May. Click Here for more information.
Source– The post is based on the article “Where anyone can be accused of sedition” published in the “The Hindu” on 14th June 2023.
Syllabus: GS 2 – Governance – Criminal Justice System
Relevance- Issues related to law having chilling impacts on fundamental rights
News– The 279th Law Commission Report, laid down the grounds for retaining sedition.
| Must read – Law Commission’s recommendations on sedition and its relevance – Explained, pointwise |
What are the significant recommendations of the Commission?
Section 124A of the IPC should be amended to incorporate the meaning of sedition which was laid down by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar in 1962.
The minimum sentence should be increased from three to seven years.
FIR in sedition cases should be registered only after a police officer, holding the rank of an Inspector or higher, makes a “preliminary enquiry”.
What is criticism against the recommendations by the Commission?
Tendency jurisdiction– The Commission claims that only those forms of expressions will be penalised which have a tendency to incite violence. “Tendency” means mere inclination to incite violence rather than proof of actual violence or imminent threat to violence.
The proposed amendment will not fundamentally alter the meaning of sedition.
Tendency’ is a vague term. It brought expressions which have no direct connection with public disorder under the ambit of law. The ‘tendency’ jurisprudence is an ambiguous standard for any judicial and executive.
Police enquiry– The Commission has proposed that the police should conduct a preliminary enquiry.
This is an even more ambiguous standard. Police have to now judge a particular act on mere inclination to violence. No proof of violence or even actual threat to violence is needed.
It paves the way further for more police power, especially where the FIR is the result of complicity with persons who have local, state, or national political clout.
Ground realities– The Commission also disregarded developments in foreign jurisdictions which have invalidated sedition laws. It has stated that the “ground realities” are different in other countries. In fact, it turns a blind eye to the ground realities in India.
The Supreme Court in 2021 admitted multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A due to confusion caused by the Kedar Nath Singh precedent.
Emphasis on colonial legacy– The Commission cites continuities from colonial times, such as the civil services and the police system, to justify sedition.
It fails to distinguish ‘colonial’ as a merely historical category from a political system impacted by domination, violence and inequality.
