Introduction to Law Commission of India
The Law Commission of India, a non-statutory body, plays a pivotal role in the legal framework of the country. Constituted by a notification from the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, the commission conducts in-depth research in the field of law and provides valuable recommendations to the government through its Reports. With a diverse range of subjects under its purview, the Law Commission has submitted 277 reports to date, contributing significantly to the development and reform of laws in India.
The Establishment and Purpose of the Law Commission:
The Law Commission of India was established to facilitate research and analysis of various legal matters and challenges faced by the nation. With a specific set of terms of reference, the commission is mandated to undertake thorough studies and propose necessary reforms to align existing laws with contemporary needs.
Sedition Law
The sedition law, as stated in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertains to actions that aim to create hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law in India. This can be through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or any other means. The punishment for sedition includes imprisonment for life, with the option of adding a fine, or imprisonment of up to three years, also with the option of adding a fine. The law further clarifies that “disaffection” encompasses feelings of disloyalty and enmity. Additionally, comments expressing disapproval of the government’s actions, with the intention of lawfully seeking alterations, without inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section. Similarly, comments expressing disapproval of administrative or other government actions without attempting to incite negative feelings do not fall under the purview of this law.
Introduction-42nd Law Commission Report
The 42nd Law Commission Report on the retention and amendments to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has stirred debates and raised concerns. The report suggests retaining the sedition law, but with certain changes to increase the punishment and provide clarity on its usage. This article examines the key recommendations of the report and highlights the potential implications on freedom of speech and expression in India.
Proposed Amendments to Section 124A:
The Law Commission recommends increasing the punishment for sedition. Presently, the law allows imprisonment up to three years or a fine. The report proposes increasing this to life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years, along with the option of a fine. This change aims to bring the punishment in line with other offenses under Chapter VI of the IPC.
Defining “Tendency”:
The report suggests modifying Section 124A by incorporating the term “tendency” regarding the incitement of violence or causing public disorder. The proposed wording specifies that sedition can be committed through a mere inclination to incite violence or disorder, without the need for evidence of actual violence or an immediate threat. This subjective interpretation may lead to concerns about potential misuse and its impact on freedom of expression.
Justification for Retention:
The Law Commission argues against the repeal of Section 124A, asserting its utility in combating anti-national and secessionist elements. The provision aims to protect the elected government from violent and illegal attempts to overthrow it. The Commission views the continued existence of the government as essential for the security and stability of the State, leading to the need to retain the sedition law.
Misinterpretation of Sedition:
The report attempts to add clarity to the law by defining the term “tendency” as a “mere inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder.” However, this definition undermines years of established jurisprudence on the subject and opens the door to subjective interpretations. The report’s assertion that sedition law only seeks to penalize the “pernicious tendency” of exercising the right to freedom of speech and expression overlooks the potential misuse and chilling effects such a provision can have.
Preventing Misuse:
To address concerns of misuse, the Law Commission suggests the Union government introduce model guidelines. The report proposes filing an FIR on sedition only after a preliminary inquiry and with the government’s permission. While this may curb potential misuse, critics argue that it could still restrict legitimate dissent and criticism.
Supreme Court’s Involvement:
In response to challenges against the sedition law, the Supreme Court temporarily put it in abeyance, urging the Centre and State Governments not to register any new FIRs under Section 124A. The court emphasized the need for a reexamination of the law to avoid unwarranted restrictions on free speech.
Balancing National Integrity and Freedom of Expression:
The 2018 consultation paper by the Law Commission had emphasized the importance of protecting national integrity while safeguarding the right to criticize and dissent. It called for a robust public debate and careful scrutiny of restrictions on free speech to avoid unnecessary curtailment of essential democratic rights.
Conclusion:
The 42nd Law Commission Report on sedition law in India recommends retaining the provision with increased punishment and clarity on its usage. While the Commission justifies its stance as necessary to protect national integrity, concerns remain regarding potential misuse and chilling effects on freedom of speech and expression. It is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to engage in a comprehensive debate to strike a balance between safeguarding the State and upholding democratic principles of free speech and dissent.
This Article is written by Gurleen Kaur , BA LLB (H) , AmityUniversity, Punjab during her internship at LeDroit India
