Past is never forgotten. Times have changed, people have grown and the world become faster. Such a scenario led us to put together some rules that supposedly regulated our rulers and accessed the morality of our actions. These basic rules are termed laws. Laws have acted as the saviour for people as it allows them to move the court at any exploitation that they might face. What happens when such laws drive away this basic right of a citizen and ostracize them? One such law is the sedition law.
So, What Is the Sedition Law?
Nestled in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code which deals with offences against the state is the disputed Section 124A, laying down punishment for sedition. This section defines sedition as any action – “whether by words, signs or visible representation” – which “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.”
Inception of Sedition
Harking back to the past, it is observed that IPC was introduced in 1860 following the revolt of 1857. Sedition was thereon introduced in Chapter IV of the IPC in 1870. Not surprisingly, the section has come under a lot of speculation since its inception. One can agree that the past is in no way a sole determinant of a country’s legal foothold.
Inarguably, colonial times were marked with rebellion. Suited to the colonial rulers was the misuse of the sedition act to quell any uprising that went against their wishes. Democratic dissent found no place in that timeline and people suffered. When faced with disapproval or slight criticism, the colonial government charged the protestors under sedition. Questioning the code landed one in a more tough place than they already were.
An instance of the contemporary time when the sedition law was questioned in the case of the journalist Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha. He had three FIRs filed against him under section 124A for comments and posts made on Facebook. These allegedly criticized the Government of Manipur for its management of a crisis at the Manipur University, and called the CM of Manipur an ‘agent of the Prime Minister’.
At the court, he contended that section 124A infringes upon an individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression. What must be kept in mind is that expressing a critical perception of an incident (which does not spark or attempt to incite violence amongst the general public) shouldn’t be charged under sedition.
In other words, unless the actions or words of a person cause social unrest, sedition law must not be invoked. The aforementioned instance just like many others in existence is a call for a revisit to the intricacies of the law and redefining it.
What’s Happening Presently?
Presently, the court in response to the union government’s affidavit to re-examine the law expressed the opinion that the clause “is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime.” Therefore, to uphold the ideal of democracy and justice, section 124A was effectively suspended by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.
The suspension conveys that governments both at the Union and state level are required to keep “all pending trials, appeals and proceedings” charged under this section “in abeyance”. This decision has come as a respite to the pro-democracy section of the country. Chief Justice Ramana pointed out that this section was a symbol of “anachronism and a colonial-era relic” and rightly so.
There is a pressing need to examine the constitutional validity of many more such laws as they not only pose an obstacle to the smooth functioning of democracy but also inflict a greater cost than any society would fail to bear. For instance, Civilian lives were lost in north-eastern states due to butchered military operations owing to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. This act, not surprisingly, is a remnant of the past.
Conclusion
It’s true that mere misuse of a law does not justify its constitutional invalidity however, the issue at the surface seems to be the equivocal nature of such laws. Moreover, basic fundamental rights such as the right to life, freedom of speech and expression are curtailed in the process.
This speaks volumes and is a blot on a society which has far cherished ideals such as democracy and equality. The present need is to gear up and strengthen the legal edifice of India.
Written By- Udhai Rawat
0 Comments