Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sedition Law - A tight rope to walk between freedom and security (Problems…
Sedition Law - A tight rope to walk between freedom and security
Sedition Laws in India
IPC - Section 124A, 1860
CrPC - Section 95, 1973
Seditious Meeting Act, 1911
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Historicity
Introduced by British Government in 1870s to deal with
Wahabi Movement
which was led by Syed Ahmed Barelvi and was centered around Patna. It was administered by the Privy Council.
It was actually invoked for the first time against Jogendra C. Bose (editor of Bangobasi), for voicing against Age of Consent Bill, 1891
1897 - Bal Ganga Tilak was arrested for writing an article in Kesari.
1922 - M K Gandhi was arrested for writing 3 articles in Young India magazine
To voice his dissent against sedition law, M.K. Gandhi famously said, "
Affection can't be manufactured and regulated by law
"
What does the text of law say
"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 established by the law is punishable with life imprisonment."
Cases and their Verdicts
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras Case
Madras Govt. declared communist party illegal and banned it's left aligned magazine
Crossroads
, as it was very critical of Nehru.
Supreme Court held bans unconstitutional stating that limitations to Article 19 (1) (a) enshrined in Article 19 (2) were limited in nature and entailed only to danger and security of the state. Thus, bans by Madras HC were excessive in nature
In a reflexive action, GoI under Pt. Nehru, expanded the ambit of Article 19(2)
RamNandan v/s Union of India Case, 1958
Allahabad HC declared Section 124A as unconstitutional and declared that it abridges the FR of Freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a).
Kedarnath Singh v/s State of Bihar Case, 1962
It over- ruled the RamNandan Case's verdict and added a caveat that the law must be used sparingly and restrictions in Article 19 (2) shall not be implemented loosly.
Balwant Singh v/s State of Punjab Case
Over- turned the sedition charges on pro- Khalistan supporters for shouting secessionist slogans.
The Court ruled that "
incitement shall be the most crucial ingredient of offence of sedition
" but not mere "advocacy".
Problems with Sedition Law
encroaches upon the basic FRs like Freedom of Expression
often leads to excesses by executive
colonial era draconian law and discontinued in modern Western nations
as per records of NCRB, cases of sedition have been increasing annually.
the provisions in the law that form the basis of arrest and detention are very vague and left to the interpretation of the state. Also, ambit of Article 19 (2) is too wide. ( 1st CAA, 1951)
is often used to muzzle dissent. Eg. Recent FIR against 40 socially spirited prominent citizens who wrote to PM about increasing cases of mob violence, Arrest of Journalist Aseem, etc
Way out/ Solution
Sedition Law shall be sparingly used
The judiciary must intervene on time and look into the genuity of charges of sedition and also, the constitutionality of the same.
Word Sedition must be removed from the constitution and replaced with a more lucid and acceptable term.