This blog is inscribed by Kaberi Sharma
INTRODUCTION
A little while back, a 14-year girl jumped up on a Dias in Bangalore and started a lecture with the words “Pakistan Zindabad”. She was immediately arrested. Before this month, in Kashmir, three students were apprehended for raising pro – Pakistan slogans. Both these instances, the authority make arrests on the cause of sedition and reawakened the debate around India’s sedition law. And the fresh information recommends that this law lasts as pertinent as ever with sedition arrests growing in recent years.
SEDITION is a present-day topic of conversation in such a crucial timeline of social and political maneuvering of our country. The word ‘Sedition’ stands for “conduct or speech which upshots in mutiny against the authority of the state.” Sedition Law mentioned in 124 A of IPC, 1860 is contemplated as acceptable limitations on freedom of speech. It was drafted by Thomas Macaulay and introduced in 1870. A nation like ours is a 'SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and preservation of the “Unity & Integrity” of the country should not only be a bare statement on a piece of paper but a duty for every citizen of this sovereign.
ORIGIN OF THE SEDITION LAW
Ø The beginning of the law of sedition in India is linked to the 19th Century, the Wahabis Movement.
Ø This was an Islamic revivalist motion, assisted by Syed Ahmed Barelvi.
Ø In 1830, the movement was mobile but, the rise of the 1857 rebellion; it converted into armed resistance, a Jihad against the British.
Ø The British named Wahabis as insurgents and carried out military operations in opposition to Wahabis.
CONNOTATION OF SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
In the eminent case of A.K.Gopalan v. The State of Madras[1], it was noticed, “Man, as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in civil – society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals…Liberty has therefore to be restricted to effectively possessed.”
The Black’s Law Dictionary explains Sedition as “an insurrectionary movement inclining towards treason but expecting an overt act; strives made by meetings or speeches or by publication to disturb the tranquility of the state.”
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines it as follows:
“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government of India shall be punishable with Life Imprisonment.”
The explanation I to the provision explains the extent of discontent and Explanation II and III specifies what under the English Law is not regarded as seditious intention.
PUNISHMENT FOR SEDITION:
Sedition is a non – bailable crime. The sentence under section 124 A stretches from imprisonment up to three years to a lifetime, to which fine may be attached. A person charged under this law is restricted from a government job. They have to reside without their passport and must produce themselves in a court at all times as and when needed.
A WEAPON TO MUZZLE THE VIEW AND VOICES.
The Law of Sedition is being and ongoing debate. Initially, the law was created by the colonial rulers to suppress the Indians, but according to Section 124 A, it is acknowledged that it is obliging in fighting the terrorist and Anti-social activities. But the implementation of this rule in the current environment is in contrast to the above statement.
Rather than being beneficial in combating the Anti – Social component, this law is used as a tool to repress the voices of the common citizens of the land, which makes it transparent that the issue is not with the provision but with the exercising of the same. Applying this ‘Sedition Law as a tool’ should be finished, which can be done either by terminating the law itself or by decreasing it.
If this proviso is abolished, then how can the anti-social components be managed? How the Maoists are too liberated? These are the issues that would come to light instantly. Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 has provisions that punish disturbing the public tranquility and discipline or conquering the Government with ferocity and illegal means. Computing to it, The National Honour Act, 1971, this in turn has provisions for offending the National Flag or the Constitution of India. These laws are enough to preserve the honor of the Country, directing the Anti-social elements and the public order.
The law is being exploited as a device to oppress political disagreement. The embezzle of this sedition principle by striking charges over the usual people who Question the Government or Condemn the Government should be finished as questioning and condemning are the fundamental rights of the citizens in the country cherished under Article 19 (1)(a).[2]
Sedition charges cannot be cracked for condemning or questioning the Government, rendered by the Apex Court of India.
The bench of Justice Deepak Misra and UU Lalit stated that the Supreme Court had resolved the contention on sedition in the past, in the case of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar[3] and had hitherto elucidated on what situations the Penal provision could be utilized.
The court had simplified in its 1962 Judgment that: a citizen has a right to say or write whatsoever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by a method of reproval or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government instituted by law or to create public disorder. In the case of Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras[4], the Apex Court endorsed that the people are incredible and the state powers are the servants of the people in the republic.
And this maltreatment of the Law and arbitrary slapping of charges are conflicting with India’s International Commitment to the confirmation of ICCPR[5], which enables the preservation of Speech and Expression.
CONCLUSION:
In a nation that is ruled by the "Natural Justice Principle" and Democracy, the misapply of the law of sedition will endure as a black mark. “Criticism heightens Democracy." Therefore, the Government should greet condemnation with an open mind. A very essential facet of democracy is that the residents should have no agitation of the government.
They should not be frightened of communicating the opinions which may not like those in power. Undoubtedly, the views must be communicated in an advanced manner without encouraging any violence, but the bare utterance of such views cannot be a crime and should not be held against residents. The universe would be the best site to reside if people could express their views bravely without being agitated of prosecution or trolling on social media.
Comments