SEDITION (Section 124A),Chapter VI- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

INTRODUCTION

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, which tends towards insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontenting (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Sedition words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that vary from one legal Code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

 The law was originally drafted by Thomas Macaulay.It was not part of IPC in the 1860 and was even dropped from the law. It was introduced in the IPC in the year 1870.

MEANING

  • Section 124-A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, named ’sedition’, explains sedition in wide and magnanimous terms, saying that a person shall be punished with life imprisonment ’whoever’:
    • by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,
    • brings or attempts to bring into hatered or contempt , or excites or attempts to excite
    • disaffection towards the Government established by law India.
  • The Indian Penal Code explains that:
    • ‘the measures of the government, with a view to obtain their desired modifications by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section.’
  • Section 124-A, comments expressing strong disapproval of the:
    • ‘administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section.’

DEFINITION

  • The word Sedition has been derived from Latin word “seditio’ which means ‘going apart’ or separation. Sedition is distinguished from treason, which requires actual betrayal of the government, or “espionage.”
  • Oxford Dictionary defines Seditions as,
    • “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.”
  • Webster Dictionary defines Sedition as,
    • “the raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an o0vert act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.”
  • Lactric Law Dictionary defines sedition as,
    • “conduct which is directed against a government and which tends towards insurrection but does not amount to treason.”
  • Halsbury’s Law of England defines sedition as,
    • “sedition as a misdemeanor at common law consisting of acts done, words spoken and published or writings capable of being a libel published, in each case with an intention-
    • To bring into hatred or to excite disaffection against, the queen or the government and the constitution, or
    • To excite the Queen’s subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state by law established, or
    • To incite persons to commit any crime in general disturbance of the peace or
    • To raise discontent or disaffection amongst her majesty’s subjects or
    • To promote ill-will and hostility between different classes of those subjects.”

SAYINGS

“That particular section (124A, IPC) is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reason…The sooner we get rid of it better.” –Jawaharlal Nehru

“Section 124A of the IPC is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress liberty of the citizen.”- Mahatma Gandhi

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE

The explanation behind this anomaly lies in the colonial era of this law. It was included in IPC by the British back in 1870, exclusively to censure dissenting voices from Indian media, intellectuals, and freedom fighters. Little wonder, then, that the law demands allegiance to government, and not to the nation.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE

  • Post-Independence, erstwhile Indian leaders realize the dangers posed by this law to freedom of speech and expression, contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, in an independent India.
  • The Constituent Assembly moved an amendment to drop sedition from the list of restrictions on this fundamental right.
  • On this occasion, highlighting the change needed in interpretation of sedition law brought about by Indians’ independence, KMMunshi said:
    • “a line must be drawn between criticism of Government which should be welcome and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which civilized life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State.”

Case: Kedar Nath Singh V State of Bihar

  • The sedition law died a judicial death 1958 when the Allahabad High Court declared it ultra vires Article 19(1)(a), only to be resuscitated in 1962 by the Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court greatly reduced the scope of offences under which this law could be applied. To make sure section 124A did not impinge on the fundamental right to free speech, the Supreme Court added,
  • “strong words used to show disapprobation of the measures of government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of action of the government, without exciting those feelings, which general the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.”
  • Thus, the court sided with an effects based test (based on the implication of words) rather than content based test (which examines the text closely) in decided sedition cases, much like in American law.
  • Further, the court went as far as to say that section 124A would be ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) if it were applied in case of “words written or spoken which merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against the Government.”

CHAPTER VI: OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (SECTION 121-130), INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

‘Passage that deals with serious offences including waging war against the state.’

SECTION 124A: SEDITION

A person should be punished with imprisonment for life or 3 years, whoever:

  • Bring or attempt to bring hatred, or
  • Contempt or
  • attempts to excite disaffection,
  • towards the government.

Explanation-1: the expression “disaffection” includes:

  • Disloyalty and
  • All feelings of enmity.

(basic idea: to prevent misuse of right to free speech by anti-social elements).

Explanation -2: following offences do not constitute an offence under this section:

Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government:

  • with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful,
  • without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.

(this explanation clearly states that “dissent or criticism without fueling hatred or violence “cannot be considered as sedition.)

Explanation-3: following offences do not constitute an offence under this section:

Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the government:

  • without exciting or attempting to exciter hatred, contempt or disaffection.

(this explanation clears states that sharp criticism of government policy and administrative action doesn’t come under sedition).

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

  • Bring or attempt to bring into hatred or
  • Exciting or attempting to excite disaffection against the Government of India,
  • Such act or attempt may be done:
  • By words, either spoken or written, or
  • By sign, or
  • By visible representation, and
  • The act must be intentional.

DRAWBACKS OF SEDITION LAW

  • It is often used as a tool to oppress the voice of dissent.
  • Party in power uses this as a weapon to curb criticism of the government.
  • Sometimes it neglects the fundamental rights given by the Constitution.
  • Misguided individual are wrongly termed as Antinational, even if they are just anti-government.
  • To target certain minority groups to prove their nationalism.
  • Its definition is very broader.

RELEVANT CASES

Case 1: The Queen-Empress V Bal Gangadhar Tilak  I.L.R. (1898) 22 BOM. 112

  • The Colonia Court:
  • the scope of the offence was expanded and
  • Mere attempt to incite feelings of disaffection could be seen as sedition.
  • The Tilak case defined sedition law under section 124A for the first time as follows;
  • The offense consists in exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the government. It is not the exciting or attempting to excite or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion or any sort of actual disturbances, great or small. Whether any disturbances or outbreak was caused by these articles is absolutely immaterial.

Case 2: Emperor V Bhaskar Balavant Bopatkar (1906)8BOM

  • The law in its wording distinguished between:
  • bringing into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government established by law and
  • What is termed in the explanation as expression disapprobation against the state (which is permissible).
  • “Disaffection” has been defined as a feeling this can exist only between “the ruler” and “the ruled”.
  • The ruler must be accepted as a ruler, and disaffection, which is the opposite of that feeling, is the repudiation of that spirit of acceptance of a particular government as ruler.

Case 3: Kedarnath V The State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

Issue rose –

Whether section 124A and 505 of the IPC are ultra vires in view of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution?

Whether the intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence is required to constitute the offence of sedition?

Judgment –

  • It was held that if sedition is understood to mean incitement of disorder, the section will lie within the ambit of permissible legislative restrictions (it is ok to charge with sedition in this case) mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression.

(in simple terms, if someone tries to incite violence by misusing right to free speech, then his or her actions amount to sedition.)

  • Without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance of law and order by the use of words which merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against, the government, then such an interpretation would make the section unconstitutional.

(In very short, as long as there is no incitement of disorder or hatred or violence, there is no sedition.)

FAMOUS CASES

PAST FAMOUS CASES

I. BAL GANGADHAR TILAK

  • The British government claimed that Tilak’s speeches on the killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji, had prompted the murder of two British officers in Pune.
  • Newly promoted Justice Jamnes Strachey over this and broadened the scope of section 124A in the proceedings by equalting”disaffection” to “disloyalty”.
  • James interpreted that the term “feelings of disaffection” means hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt, and every form of ill will towards the government. Tilak was charged with sedition.

II. MAHATMA GANDHI

  • They most famous sedition trial after Tilak’s was the trial of Mahatma Gandhi I 1922. Gandhi was charged, along with the proprietor of Young India, for three articles published in the magazine. It was presided over by judge Strangman.
  • Gandhi explained to the Judge why from being a staunch royalist, he had become an uncompromising” disaffections” and non-cooperator, and why it was his moral duty to disobey the law. In a stunning statement, Gandhi commented on the law that was used to try him and demanded that the judge give him the maximum punishment possible.

PRESENT FAMOUS CASES

  • Aseem Trivedi, cartoonist (September 2001)
    • He was arrested after a complaint that his cartoon mocked the constitution and national emblem. The charges were dropped a month later following widespread criticism and public protests.
  • 2 girls (November 2012)
    • Girls from Mumbai were arrested after posting a Facebook post against the Government decision to shut down the city on death of Bala Thackrey.
  • 9000 men and women (2011 and 2013)
    • Astonishing number of 23000 men and women protested against a nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu were held for “waging war against the state” and sedition- 9000 of them for sedition alone.
  • 60 Kashmiri students (March 2014)
    • They were charged with sedition in Uttar Pradesh for cheering for Pakistan in a cricket match against India. Authorities dropped the charges following legal advice from the law minister.
  • 7 young men, including student (August 2014)
    • Authorities of Kerala charged them with sedition after a complaint that they had refused to stand up during the national anthem in a cinema.
  • S. Kovan, folk singer (October 2015)
    • In Tamil Nadu for 2 songs criticizing the state government for allegedly profiting from state-owned liquor shops at the expense of the poor.
  • Kanhaiya Kumar, student leader (February 2016)
    • He was arrested and charged with sedition for allegedly shouting ant-Indian slogans. He was later freed on bail.
  • JNU students (2017)
    • For protesting against capital punishment in the country was charged with sedition.
  • Anti CAA protesters (December 2019)
    • It is matter of concern that a large number of sedition cases have been filed against the CAA. Data from the Nation Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that 194 cases of sedition have been filed since the CAA was passed.
  • Crux:
    • According to NCRB data, more cases of sedition have been filed since then in the last 3 years put together. The data also shows that whole the number of sedition cases filed has been going up every year (number for sedition cases started being recorded from 2014) in the last four years; only 4 cases actually resulted in conviction.
  • Comment: These incidences reflect that application of Sedition law in India is very arbitrary.

SUGGESTIONS

I. URGENT NEED TO AMEND THE LAW

“Law is a dynamic concept; it keeps o changing with the changes in conditions of the society”

Based upon the controversy ragging abound section 124A, IPC since its enactment and the present conditions, it would be formulation of the offence so as to make it a patently reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The legislature should narrow the ambit of section by amending it.

II. QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED

  • The quantum of punishment provided for the offence needs to be rationalized.
  • Perhaps a maximum punishment at seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine would be appropriate, taking into consideration the gravity of offence.

III. APPLICATION SHOULD BE RESTRICTIVE

  • It will be unjustified to scrap any law only because of its tendency of its being misused.
  • This section should be applied in rarest of rare cases.
  • The prima facie evidence of incitement to violence should be there before any person is booked under section 124A.
  • In the plain words, the government should ensure that the law is used reasonably and with restrain.

CONCLUSION

The protagonists who support no hatred but freedom of speech and expression, thus majorly come across this section are of the opinion that section 124A, should be abolished because:

  • This 1860 draconian colonial law was created to stifle dissent during colonial rule.
  • Today, the law is used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government.
  • Journalists, human Rights activists, political dissents, public intellectuals, and even farmers and tribal are targeted by this law.
  • The law goes against the inalienable fundamental right to expression enshrined in our Constitution.
  • The law goes against the very nature of democratic process which relies on active consent and dissent or opposition.

“IT IS FAR MORE IGNOMINIOUS TO DIE BY JUSTICE THAN BY AN UNJUST SEDITION.”- Blaise Pascal

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PROJECT WORK IN LAW OF CRIMES-I ON,The Sedition Law- A Critical Analysis of Offence Against the State -under supervisor of Dr.Narendra Nagarwal, submitted by Akash Choudhary.

Sedition- Preeti Prakash.

Why India needs to get rid of its sedition law- bbc.com

Should the sedition law be scrapped- the hindu.com

Sedition law in India, it’s importance and drawbacks- pcsnotes.in

Unknown's avatar

Published by FARHEEN DHANJAL

I am besides being a self-help writer and podcaster am a lawyer as well. I sense an intense inclination towards the power of words; their placing, usage moreover the power of interpretation they possess in law as well as philosophy. My writings are an outcome of great mind processing, notion understanding, and articulation skills as I write: – Concrete and straightforward, – Therapy and self-help, and – Professional and guidance.

Leave a Comment