Editorial

Introduction

• Sedition Law is one of the most controversial laws that still subsists in India’s recent legal system from the colonial past.
• It refers to actions or speech that incite resistance against established authority or spark rebellion against the existing government.
• The Law drafted by the British Government aimed to suppress the Indian freedom struggle, the law was effectively used by the colonial administration to imprison Indian leaders on non-specific but sweeping charges.

Background

• The process of re-examination of Sedition Law began after the order of Supreme Court (SC), in the case of SG Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022).
• The SC hit the pause button on the provision, ruling that the law was not in sync with the social background anymore.
• However, the 22^nd Law Commission recommended that the 153-year-old colonial law be retained, saying that repealing the provision could have adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country.
• A bill by the name of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 which is set to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been introduced in the Parliament which will punish the offence of Sedtion for upto 7 years.

Legal Position

• Section 124A of the IPC which deals with the Sedition law, was not mentioned when the act was first enforced.
• The law relating to ‘Sedition’ was added in the year 1870.
• In the cases of Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) and Ram Nandan v. State of UP (1958), the provision of Sedition was held unconstitutional and was held a tool of Colonial Power to curb disharmony.
• In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) the SC upheld the constitutional validity of this provisions of the IPC.
• Thereafter in the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), the SC reiterated the position that criticism of the government or political leaders, even if vehement, does not amount to sedition unless there is incitement to violence or public disorder.
• The United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda are among other democratic nations that have rejected sedition laws as undemocratic, unwanted, and unneeded.

Punishment for Sedition

• The offence of Sedition under the Code is a non-bailable, cognizable offence which is triable by the Court of Session.
• A person charged with sedition may have to face one or more of the following consequences:
  • Barred from Government Job: Being charged with sedition doesn't necessarily result in an automatic bar from government employment. However, certain criminal charges, depending on their nature and severity, could impact an individual's eligibility for certain government positions.
  • Passport Restrictions: While someone charged with sedition might face restrictions on international travel, such restrictions would likely be imposed by the court or authorities involved in the case.
  • Court Appearances: If someone is charged with any criminal offense, including sedition, they may be required to attend court hearings as and when summoned.

Recommendations of the Law Commission – 279th Report

• Incorporating the Kedar Nath Judgement -
  • In Kedar Nath’s case, the SC upheld the constitutionality of the Sedition law stating that it falls within the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on freedom of speech mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• Installing a New Procedural ‘Safeguard’ -
  • The Commission recommends a major procedural amendment to the CrPC to prevent the ‘alleged misuse’ of the law.
  • It suggests that a police officer, holding the rank of an Inspector or higher, must conduct a preliminary inquiry before the First Information Report (FIR) is filed.
• Increasing the Term of Punishment -
  • The Commission recommends enhancing the punishment to a period of seven years or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
• Inserting New Words in the Provision -
  • The Report recommends the insertion of the words ‘tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder’ in the provision.
  • It defines ‘tendency’ as an ‘inclination to incite violence or public disorder rather than proof of actual violence or imminent threat to violence’.

Conclusion

Sedition remains a complex and evolving issue, embodying the tension between safeguarding social order and upholding freedom of expression. The SC is not bound by the Law Commission’s recommendations but at present the recommendations clash with the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and individual freedom. The State must be able to defend itself against internal and external aggression, but such action should never come at the cost of constitutional rights.