INTRODUCTION
The liberal idea that an individual should be free from societal pressure is where the concept of freedom of expression originates. One of the main tenets of this school of thinking is that the only time it is acceptable to restrict someone’s freedom of action is when such behaviour endangers other people. This domain that is free from compulsion encompasses freedom of conscience in its broadest definition. This is the view that not only is everyone entitled to an opinion on any subject, whether it be practical, speculative, moral, or theological, but that individuals are free to express those opinions, regardless of how unpopular, offensive, or harmful they may be, except in cases where they cause actual harm to others. A society that does not generally respect fundamental rights cannot call itself a free society, regardless of its system of governance. Therefore, press and speech freedoms are two of the most essential rights for any open society and, by extension, any liberal democracy.
These principles of free speech serve as the theoretical basis for liberalism. The “Founding Fathers” of the United States formalised these ideas in the First Amendment as a result of recent events in France and their efforts to create a true liberal democratic society. The fact that this concept is the subject of the First Amendment and not farther down the list indicates that they saw it as essential to a free society. This rule is predicated on the notion that freedom of expression permits us to discover the truth. Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code criminalises sedition, which is frequently criticised on the grounds that it violates the inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE-
The objective of this research is to find out about the law of sedition in India, how it has evolved, the application of the law, what are the case laws regarding it and is the law still relevant in recent times.
The law of sedition is addressed in a number of Indian legislative statutes. As previously mentioned, section 124 A of the IPC defines the offence of sedition. Nonetheless, this is one of the regulations pertaining to this offence. The following provisions describe sedition and the possible consequences for it:
- In 1860, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) came into effect. The primary section applicable to this offence is Section 124 A, which specifies the sedition offence. Under this provision, the highest possible sentence for a criminal is life in prison.
- The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) The government may confiscate or forfeit any publication that violates section 124 A of the IPC under section 95 of the CrPC. In addition, the government may acquire a search warrant in order to seize the publication. There are two prerequisites for this law to take effect:
- the substance must be prohibited by Section 124A, and
- The government must provide grounds for its decision to seize the contraband.
- According to section 2 (o) of the 1967 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, “any act supporting secession claims, contesting or upsetting territorial integrity, and inciting or attempting to inspire disloyalty towards India falls within its authority.” 12 Section 13 specifies the penalties for the offence, which range from a fine to seven years in prison.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Sedition laws with Constitution of India –
The legal protection of the right to demonstrate, dissent, or criticise the government might be undermined or eliminated as a result of these laws. Section 124-A of the Code was challenged after the Indian Constitution took effect on the grounds that it violated Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to free expression. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech to all citizens. Each Indian can openly voice their viewpoint. This right to free speech and expression protects criticising current government structures, policies, acts, and administrative schemes and promoting the formation of alternate systems. 19(1)(a) freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) covers reasonable limits to Article 19 (1) (a). Sedition is not a cause for justifiable limits. The issue is whether the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Penal Code is subject to reasonable restrictions. The clash between sedition and free expression isn’t new. The Constitution’s framers debated whether to include the term “sedition” in Article 19(2), but ultimately did not. It was seen that if they wanted to include it in Article 19 (2), they would have. In clause (2), they opted not to use “sedition” but used more comprehensive phrases that include sedition and everything else.
Misapplication of the sedition Act-
Since independence, the Sedition Act has been subject to many interpretations and consequences, including passing the constitutionality test in the Kedar Nath case. Yet, just as the British did, present governments continue to use it to restrict the rights of citizens and stifle dissent. In addition, there has been little uniformity in sedition cases, and the outcomes have varied from case to case. In the current climate, someone may be prosecuted with sedition on the basis of scant evidence. Muhammed Ali, a resident of Eloor, was charged with sedition for allegedly ‘liking’ a photo with the caption ‘I Love Pakistan’ Digvijay Singh, a member of the Legislative Assembly for the Congress party, was charged with sedition for reportedly criticising yoga guru expert Baba Ramdev and labelling him a “fake.” Even a municipal court approved of the case. A group of students were charged with sedition for simply praising the Pakistan cricket team during a game. The case Sanskar Marathe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.4, which drew international censure, demonstrates how the police arbitrarily apply the law. The Mumbai police detained the well-known cartoonist Aseem Trivedi for printing humorous cartoons in a publication that ridiculed the state’s then-chief minister. Even though he was charged with sedition, the court found him not guilty and upheld a citizen’s freedom to say or write anything he wishes against the government, regardless of how vehemently, so long as it does not incite violence or disrupt public order. Before enforcing section 124A of the IPC, the court provided the police with many suggestions. The National Crime Records Bureau reports that 47 sedition charges were brought in nine states in 2014. In the majority of these cases, there was no provocation to violence. One of the 58 persons detained in connection with these activities was found guilty by the court. In 2018, according to NCRB data, 90 sedition charges were brought, but only two defendants were found guilty. This demonstrates how the police force abuses its authority by failing to implement the law correctly and tries to restrict the rights of individuals in the name of national security and honour. According to the evidence supplied previously, courts do not determine guilt in every case of sedition. A person charged with sedition has various obstacles while attempting to live a regular life. They have difficulty travelling overseas, are socially ostracised and stigmatised, are prohibited from taking government positions, and are required to periodically appear in court and pay legal expenses. This demonstrates that although individuals may avoid legal repercussions, the effort necessary to prove their innocence is a penalty in and of itself. A person who has been falsely accused under section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code must now endure the consequences for the remainder of their lives. People fear expressing their views in public, which is the country’s primary concern over sedition laws. There appears to be a dearth of official criticism, despite the fact that dissent is a natural component of a democratic society. On several instances, the courts have sought to find a balance by drawing a line between free speech and the crime of sedition. On the other hand, the law is being used for political purposes and to forward the goals of the ruling class.
Judicial Point on Sedition Laws-
In the case of Ram Nandan v. State of U.P.[1], the apex authority ruled that section 124-A imposed restrictions on the right to free expression that were not in the public’s best interest, declaring section 124-A to be unconstitutional.
In the case of Kedarnath Das v. State of Bihar[2], however, the Supreme Court determined that Section 124-A is intra vires, overturning the finding of the High Court.
Tara Singh vs State of Punjab[3] made Section 124-A of IPC was decided and declared to be void and unconstitutional as it was believed that it was in a direct violation of freedom of speech and expression which was provided to the people of the country by section 19(1) of the constitution.
In Indramam Singh v. State of Manipur[4], it was decided that S. 124-A, which tries to put limits on inciting disaffection or trying to incite disaffection, goes beyond what the law can do. However, the restriction on the right to free speech that makes it illegal to incite hatred or contempt for the government set up by law in India is covered by clause (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India and can be considered intra vires. The Supreme Court has made it clear whether limits can be put in place in the public interest under Article 19(2). It ruled that any limits put in place must have a reasonable and logical link to the public order or else they are illegal.
Justifications on why sedition law should be reconsidered-
Sedition in India is ambiguous. Sedition may be handled by other legislation, making 124A outdated. England’s definition of sedition was much broader than India’s. Few people were charged with it over the century thus the law commission repealed it. The commission’s findings assumed that the law’s intended offences were appropriately covered by other legislation. The British parliamentary arguments for repealing the Act cited Tilak as an example of such laws throughout colonial India’s independence. Sedition laws had grown outdated in the U.K., therefore the government seldom used them against opponents. The 2009 Coroners and Justice Act outlawed seditious libel. When we examine at the I.P.C. sections that deal with public tranquilly offences, we notice that they contain offences that disturb public order, society’s calm, and other offences that are injurious to public order and harmony. The I.P.C. effectively covers the current definition of sedition, which encourages violence and disrupts public order. State governments have taken measures to maintain public order. In view of state laws and the I.P.C., a federal statute covering a crime with no universal application seems redundant. Other restrictions are less burdensome and more efficient since they can be implemented uniformly. Those suspected of the crime wouldn’t be labelled “traitors” until their guilt was confirmed, and once their term was completed or they were acquitted, they might live as “other convicts.” Sedition legislation is now punitive, not distributive.
CONCLUSION-
Since the days of the colonies, sedition has been used to limit the inalienable and natural right of citizens to free speech and expression. By putting some of the freedom fighters on trial for this crime, the British were able to stop them from continuing their fight for independence. But since India got its independence, this requirement has been put on Indian citizens without any reason. This has made Indians, legal scholars, and other important people angry, and they want this clause to be taken out. They have also talked about how important it is to change other laws in order to keep the country together and keep people’s faith in Indian democracy. Right now, it is a basic human right for a person to be able to speak freely and loudly. This is an important part of democracy. If sedition laws and freedom of speech and expression are in conflict, freedom of speech and expression should always win. I think that freedom of speech is a natural right that can’t be taken away in any way.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/ REFERENCES
- B S Uday Kiran, The Analytical Study of Sedition Law in India and its Constitutional Validity, Vol. 5 Issue 3; 1483, 2022
- Prithvi Raj, Sedition Law in India: A critical analysis, Volume 7, ISSN 2581-6535, 2021
By-Anushka Gupta
Symbiosis Law School NOIDA
[1] AIR 1959 All 101.
[2] 1962 AIR 955.
[3] 1951 AIR 441.
[4] 1955 CriLJ 184.
