The very slapping of the sedition charge on a citizen forever endangers the person's right to live with dignity

There is virtual immunity to abusers and a total lack of remedy to victims of abuse of sedition. Still, we call ourselves a country ruled by the rule of law.

In two recent cases, the Supreme Court came down heavily against abuse of criminal charges of sedition. It held that the FIR against YSRCP MP of Andhra Pradesh, Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju, was lacking in the ingredients to invoke sedition.  In the Vinod Dua case, the court warned to review and settle the limits of this draconian law. Will the rulers and police listen? 

Criticising the dictatorial attitude of the Administrator in Lakshadweep, film-maker Aisha Sultana recently said in a TV debate:  "Lakshadweep had '0' cases of Covid-19. Now, it is reporting a daily spike of 100 cases. What the Centre has deployed is a bio-weapon. I can say this clearly that the central government has deployed a bio-weapon."  The BJP's Lakshadweep unit president Abdul Khader, filed a complaint of sedition with the Kavaratti police on June 9, alleging this anti-national act tarnished the "patriotic image" of the Centre. The police jumped to register it. 

At the behest of a BJP leader's complaint, Delhi Police booked a sedition charge in May 2020 against senior journalist Vinod Dua, allegedly to silence him from criticising the Prime Minister and the Centre for their CAA policy.  Delhi High Court stayed coercive action against Dua, and within hours another BJP leader complained and Himachal Pradesh booked another sedition case. It is proof that police investigators are not applying their minds but simply obeying political bosses or their loyal followers. The Supreme Court saved Dua on June 3 by quashing the sedition charge, but he would be under a constant threat of arrest and harassment of his family. Is there any remedy for the suffering of falsely accused persons like him? Is quashing a false charge enough? When dictatorial rulers do not stop abuse and the legislature is silent, people look to the judiciary to answer these questions. 

Vinod Dua raised an issue in SC: "There is a recent trend to register FIRs against persons of the media primarily to harass them and to intimidate them so that they succumb to the line of the state or else face the music at the hands of the police."  In Kedar Nath Singh (1962), five judges of the Supreme Court made it clear that "allegedly seditious speech and expression may be punished only if the speech is an 'incitement' to 'violence', or 'public disorder'"(Vinod Dua vs. Union of India, WP(Crl) No. 154 of 2020, by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran). In their 117-page judgment, the SC explained: "Every journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh."

It also observed in another case: "A speech should be considered as a whole in a free, fair and liberal spirit, the plea states that the police across the country are picking a part of the speech or expression to invoke section 124-A against the citizens, that too, without examining the proximate and direct nexus of the act." This is a caution from the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case, which unfortunately none follows. What are the legal consequences of this continued defiance? The SC left a huge gap on this aspect.  This kind of impunity turns out to be immunity for these abusers of the draconian British-time law.  In February 2021, advocates, Aditya Ranjan, Varun Thakur, and V. Elenchezhiyan, filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a mechanism against the indiscriminate and unlawful use of the sedition law, saying the very slapping of the sedition charge forever endangers the person's right to live with dignity. It causes a chilling effect on other citizens and prevents them from exercising their fundamental right to criticize the Government and its policies by legitimate means.  The petition was rejected because there was no cause of action.

However, the rulers are regularly abusing and giving several causes of action. There should be another effort to either get the sedition law scrapped or limited by mandatory directions prescribed by the apex court. How many ordinary journalists or social media writers can afford to get protection from the apex court? Should their affordability decide their freedom?

(The writer is Professor of Law, Bennett University and former Central Information Commissioner. The views expressed are personal.)