Is Sedition Law Curbing Free Speech?

Abstract

The word “Sedition” means action or expression that results in rebellion against the authority of the state. This law was enacted by the colonial government to curb people’s views on government and its ruling.

Since then the Law of Sedition is defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. But the implementation of this law is in contravention of our freedom of speech and expression. Various governments have misinterpreted this section, and the views of citizens are used against them. Is this how a democratic country governs its citizens?

The increase in violence and protests is not because the people are exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression unreasonably, instead, it’s because of the lack of public platforms provided by the government for its citizens to voice their opinions. 

Introduction

The fundamental right to Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution. It also allows criticizing the government. Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and it comes with reasonable restrictions. But do these “reasonable” restrictions tend to curb our independent thought process? 

Thomas Macaulay introduced the law of sedition. This provision was added by the British Government to stop Indians from protesting and ruling against them. Also, our freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak were charged under this provision. Earlier sedition was not in the Indian Penal Code however it was added by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870.

Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines sedition as, “words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law and provides for punishment to the offender with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.” Is the sedition law required to be further amended?

Constitutionality of Sedition Law

Anything which causes dissatisfaction and public disorder amount to sedition. But it is not possible to consider mere criticism of the functionality of the government as an offense. The origins of our democracy come from the constitution’s Article 19(1)(a).

Freedom of speech and expression (free speech) is discussed, but the law of sedition overlaps with this article’s essentials. Since freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, the constitutionality of section 124-A has been questioned.

The very first case which questioned the validity of sedition law was Ram Nandan v. the State of U.P, in this case, the Allahabad High Court held that Section 124-A is violating the principle of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, this provision of the Indian Penal Code was invalidated. 

In 1961, the Punjab High Court ruled that the agitation violated the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19 and declared it unconstitutional. In the end, in the state of Kedar Nath Singh v. Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124-A. 

The court said that there must be certain limitations on the acts which have the intention or the propensity to create public disorder. When the speech causes violence and discrepancy in law then restrictions must be imposed to the speech.

Section 124-A has two major essentials: – An attempt must be made to bring hatred or disaffection towards the government and the other is that an attempt must be either in spoken, written, or through signs.

As per the judgment in the case of Kedar Nath Singh, presently the prevailing conditions of initiating the proceedings under the provision are not as per the guidelines laid down in this case, like mere chanting would make the person anti-national because the government interprets it as per their convenience.

If we interpret the above-mentioned judgment, it can be comprehended that every right comes with some restrictions and is not absolute. Government has the responsibility towards its citizens, but the unnecessary or arbitrary imposition of its powers won’t make the person responsible for sedition. It is a serious offense hence, every factor has to be considered before charging anyone for sedition.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This right consists of an implied right to criticize the government. Although, free speech comes with reasonable restrictions.

These reasonable restrictions are mentioned under Article 19(2), applied concerning the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, etiquette or morality, or any relation therewith. Freedom of Speech and Expression itself says to express one’s views and opinion freely without any fear or terror.

In the case of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression also includes freedom to propagate ideas. It is pertinent to note that there is a provision under Article 19(2) wherein reasonable restrictions are given, but sedition is not a part of it or mentioned as one of the grounds of restriction for freedom of speech and expression.

Section 124-A is inconsistent with Article1 9(2) of the constitution. (that is upon the Supreme Court to decide whether or not it is inconsistent, you cannot decide that,) Article 19(2) lays down the grounds of restrictions in interests of state’s security, friendly relations with other states, public order, morality or decency, contempt of court, defamation, sovereignty and integrity of India, and incitement to an offense.

Is mere criticism sedition?

India is a democratic country where each individual has an equal say and participation in expressing their views to the government. The provisions of this law put great focus on the words which create hatred and disaffection towards the government but the implementation of this provision is done in the wrong way; people have been charged under this provision for acts like chanting slogans supporting Pakistan in cricket matches and they are considered anti-national which is an irrational implementation of this Section.

Public opinions are suppressed in the name of sedition. It is a tool that is often seen to curb their Freedom of speech. In the case of Tara Singh vs. State, it has been laid down that there is no place for Section 124-A in the law books of this country as it hampers the fundamental right to Freedom of speech and expression.

Sedition is a serious criminal offense but sedition charges have been imposed even on trivial cases. The controversy arose when they were charged with sedition for speaking at the seminar against Arundhati Roy, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Varavara Rao and others. Even chanting for another country is considered as hate speech and one might be charged under the sedition law.

In a cricket match against India, 60 Kashmiri students cheered for Pakistan and, in March 2014, they were charged with sedition. One of them was accused of putting up banners insulting the constitution and publishing the same on his website during the rally of Anti-Corruption crusader Anna Hazare in Mumbai.

He was prosecuted under Section 124-A of the IPC, Section 66A of the Law on Information Technology, and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. Many individuals are falsely charged under the sedition law such as Kanhaiya Kumar, and several others.

The sedition law often leads to violation of the Right to Freedom of speech and expression. The policies and rules by which the citizens are governed should be questioned as all of them are not in the favor of the public and it might contravene other provisions of different statutes.

Free Speech is a fundamental right of an individual but citizens must also make sure that they are not misusing this right as just a  few statements can cause violence in the nation.

A few examples where people were charged for the offense of sedition, one was when Binayak Sen, a pediatrician by trade, apparently assisted Naxalites, reportedly, for which he was charged by the Chhattisgarh Government with sedition. The meaning of sedition needs to be defined properly as the verbatim of section 124-A of IPC are not to-the-point and hence creates confusion.

The sedition law is essential for maintaining the security of the nation but misinterpreting this provision in the name of public order will convert it as an action against the government. Therefore, this law has to make an equal balance with the freedom of speech and expression and sedition law.

Conclusion

Criticism is crucial for development; hence every nation or person has to be strong enough to tackle criticism because it acts as an aid for the growth of the country and helps to rectify any flaws. A speech that talks about the unity and integrity of the country is seen as ‘breaking the country’ and the person is put under preventive detention.

The sedition law is not defined exclusively under any statute and is often misinterpreted and misused.

India, being a diverse country, is full of different public opinions and varied views, and everyone’s opinion is respected and valued in society. Therefore, this law needs to be transformed considering the society at large, punishing someone for the charge of sedition requires a lot of inspection and consideration.

If this law is used in this direction and no reforms are made, then sooner or later the citizens will depart and get detached from the government and this will ultimately cause a situation of chaos. Therefore, Section 124-A will/might become constitutionally valid and acceptable as law when it ceases to conflict with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. For the best interest of the nation, it’s mandatory to strike balance with the sedition law.