News
The content discusses the deliberations and recommendations concerning Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Law Commission in its 279th Report, along with the stance of the Central Government as presented in the Supreme Court (SC).
- Law Commission's Recommendation:
The Law Commission, in its 279th Report, has put forth the recommendation of retaining Section 124 of the IPC. This section deals with the offenses relating to assaults against the President, Governors, etc., with an intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power.
The suggestion for retention indicates the necessity to maintain this legal provision to safeguard the constitutional authorities from undue influence or intimidation.
- Central Government’s Stance:
Following the Law Commission's recommendation, the Central Government too conveyed to the Supreme Court (SC) its agreement on retaining Section 124 of the IPC.
This affirmation by the Central Government in the SC emphasizes the importance of this section in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring the safety and integrity of the constitutional positions against any form of assault or intimidation
Quotes
- "Sedition is the Prince Amongst Political Sections designed to suppress the Liberty of its citizens." - M.K. Gandhi
- The Supreme Court remarked, "The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood, and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself," indicating that the intended limited use has expanded over a larger population.
Introduction
Sedition has its origins traced back to the British colonial period, being a relic of colonial-era legislation. When introduced by the British, it carried a biased intention against the Indian populace. Presently, it is categorized under Chapter 6 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), titled 'Offences Against the State'. This chapter encompasses serious offences including waging war against the government and concealing intent to facilitate a movement against the state
Definition
British Era Definition:
Sedition was defined as any action, whether expressed through words, signs, or visible representation, that incites hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law.
Modern Indian Definition (Post-Independence):
The scope of sedition was further clarified in the landmark Kedarnath Judgment. According to this ruling, the old definition of sedition remains, but it now includes an additional criterion: the act must incite or tend to incite an offense.
Legal Characteristics
- Non-Compoundable: Offenses under this law cannot be settled outside the court.
- Cognizable Offense: Authorities can arrest individuals without a warrant.
- Non-Bailable: There is no provision for automatic bail.
- Punishment: Convicted individuals may face jail terms, with or without an additional fine
Data
ADD IMAGE HERE BY
Data by NCRB
- Lack of Guilty Verdict in Low Conviction Rate:
This part suggests that there's a low rate of convictions in cases related to a particular law, possibly sedition, as implied from the previous discussion. This low conviction rate reflects a lack of guilty verdicts being rendered by the courts.
- Affects the Rights of Individuals:
The low conviction rate, presumably for charges of sedition or similar offenses, might have implications on individuals' rights. It could mean that individuals are being charged and possibly detained for extended periods without eventual convictions, which could infringe on their rights.
- Low Deterrence Effect of the Law:
Laws are often intended to deter individuals from committing certain actions deemed harmful to others or to the state. However, if a law results in a low conviction rate, it may not serve as an effective deterrent. People might not take the law seriously if they see that convictions are rare, which could in turn undermine the law's intended deterrent effect.
Arguments in Favor
- National Integrity and Anti-national Activities:
It's crucial to curb anti-national activities to ensure national integrity and maintain a stable societal structure.
- Counter-Insurgency and Foreign Propaganda:
- Two-and-a-Half Front War Challenge:
- Geographical Position:
- External Threats:
Addressing insurgency movements and foreign propaganda is vital for national security.
The first front refers to the eastern border with China, the second front implicates Pakistan, and the 'half' front represents internal insurgency issues. These challenges highlight the importance of having mechanisms like sedition laws to counter insurgency and external threats.
Being sandwiched between the Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran) and the Golden Triangle (Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia) poses unique security challenges for India.
Sedition laws are seen as necessary to thwart external attempts aimed at overthrowing the government established by law.
- Misuse and Procedural Safeguards:
While misuse of the law is a concern, it doesn't form a basis for repeal. Procedural safeguards, like incorporating principles from the Kedarnath judgment, can address misuse issues. The problem of misuse isn't a new phenomenon and can be mitigated with proper legal frameworks.
- Analysis and Recommendations:
In her book "Sedition in Liberal Democracies," Anushka Singh discusses how various liberal democracies, including Britain, have repealed sedition laws. However, she notes that these countries replaced old laws with new ones which, in some cases like Anti-terror laws, are even more repressive.
According to Singh, while sedition laws may politicize cases, anti-terror laws tend to depoliticize them.
She advocates for reforming rather than repealing sedition laws as other legal alternatives may prove to be equally, if not more, repressive
Arguments in Against
- Chilling Effect:
The sedition law is criticized for its chilling effect, where fear of legal repercussions or legislative actions lead individuals to self-censor, inhibiting free expression and open dialogue.
- Democracy's Dilemma:
The law epitomizes the "democracy's dilemma," where a balance between ensuring freedom of expression and maintaining national security becomes challenging. The tension between these two fundamental principles is exacerbated by laws that potentially curb free speech.
- Vagueness in Definition:
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which defines sedition, is often criticized for its vague terminology, such as "disaffection towards" the government, which can be subjectively interpreted and misused.
- Colonial Legacy:
The Supreme Court has remarked that sedition law is a colonial legacy with no place in a modern democratic society. This view reflects a growing sentiment that the law is outdated and inconsistent with democratic values.
- Fluctuating Conviction Rate:
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there's notable fluctuation in the conviction rate for sedition cases, which may indicate inconsistent application of the law or reflect its misuse
Important SC Cases
- S.G. Vamabadkare Judgment:
In this case, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of Section 144A of the IPC, pending a final decision by the government.
- Kedarnath Case:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the IPC, albeit with a narrower scope. It ruled that sedition charges could only be applied in cases with incitement to offense or violence. However, concerns remain as this narrowed interpretation is often not considered during arrests under sedition charges.
- Law Commission Recommendations:
- Incorporation of the Kedarnath principle to ensure a narrower scope of application.
- Procedural safeguards such as conducting a preliminary inquiry by an officer not below the rank of inspector before registering an FIR.
- Issuance of model guidelines by the Central Government to curb misuse and address related issues.
The Law Commission advised retaining Section 124A of the IPC to address democratic security challenges while also suggesting the following:
- Analysis by Abhinav Chandrachud:
In his book "Republic of Rhetoric," Chandrachud argues that the main challenge to freedom of speech is not state-imposed restrictions, but societal demands for certain speech restrictions. He suggests reducing the maximum sentence for sedition and making the offense bailable and non-cognizable to better balance between freedom of speech and state security concerns.
New Laws
The Union Government is planning to overhaul the criminal justice system of the country
The Three New Bills are
- Bharteey Nyaya Samhita, 2023 - Replaces IPC
- Bharteey Naagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 - Replaces CrPC
- Bhartiya Sakshy Bill, 2023 Replaces - Replaces Indian Evidence Act
Question
Question: How do you interpret the parameters of sedition law in India does it infringe on the exercise of freedom of speech and expression discuss it in the context of supreme court judgments.
Answer Structure:
- Interpretation of Para of Sedition Law
- From wider interpretation it narrowed down to a more restricted interpretation - cite some cases
- The way forward is the middle path between scraping it and leaving it