A few days back, Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, passed oral remarks addressed to Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak...
Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?” The CJI observed that the sedition law is prone to misuse by the Government and that “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”.
He further remarked, “If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive agencies.” The CJI interestingly asked why a colonial law used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak has still managed to survive after 75 years of Independence.
The fact remains Tilak was thrice charged and twice convicted for sedition by the British Raj for his publications in Marathi newspaper ‘Kesari’, which was his way of venting criticism or disapproval of the policies and functioning of the British administration and for demanding Swarajya.
During his trial, Tilak voiced his demand before the jury that time has come for the Press in India to be treated at par with the Press in England. And 100 years after that incident, the United Kingdom got rid of the sedition law in 2009, but we have still retained the colonial law of Section 124A of the IPC.
Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the UK Ministry of Justice Claire Ward in the event of repealing of the sedition law said, “Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences–from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today…”
In fact, we need to undertake serious thinking about the continuation of the sedition law having colonial roots at least after what the Chief Justice has said, “The situation on the ground is grave... If one party does not like what the other is saying, Section 124A is used... It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties.”In another instance, the Supreme Court recently quashed an FIR registered against a senior journalist, who is a recipient of Padma Shri award and many other recognitions.
He was charged under the sedition law for reporting about the situation consequent upon the imposition of the first lockdown and highlighting the need for adequate testing facilities, PPE suits, N95 masks and ventilators and for emphasising the disruption of supply chains.
In this case, the court found no merit in the prosecution’s allegation that false information or rumours were spread by the journalist and the court held that being a journalist he was very much within his rights to address “issues of great concern so that adequate attention could be bestowed to the prevailing problems”.
In the meantime, senior journalist Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause have moved to the Supreme Court to quash Section 124A contending that a "presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or body".
And this is something which raises serious questions about the constitutionality of the sedition law; especially it has been observed that it is used by the Government of the day most conveniently to curtail the right to freedom of expression of the citizens and to muzzle the voice of dissent whenever the Government gets into awkward situations or faces any criticism.
The arbitrary use of sedition law or Section 124 is best summed up by the Chief Justice with his observation that the sweeping powers of Section 124A enables even a village police officer to infringe the right to liberty and free speech of citizens.
The CJI observed, “If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124A... People are scared. Our concern is misuse of the law and the lack of accountability. Why has it continued in the statute book even after 75 years of our Independence?” In this context, it is worth mentioning the opinion of the Constituent Assembly of India, which aggressively opposed the sedition law as it was viewed by it as a restriction to freedom of speech and expression, which makes one think if the sedition law is a living paradox in the face of our Constitution.
(The writer is a lawyer and public policy expert and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law and Media Studies at School of Mass Communication, KIIT Deemed to be University. He can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com)