Indian Constitution

Answer: In India, Sedition has been defined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code as an offense committed when any person brings/attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites/attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law through their words (spoken or written), or signs or by visible representation or otherwise. It is a non-bailable offense and can be punished with an imprisonment up to a life term. The passport of the person charged under the law is seized and the person is barred from government jobs until proven innocent. This law was drafted by Macaulay in 1837 and was inserted in IPC in 1870. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gandhiji had been tried under sedition. This law has been an object of intense debate since independence. Arguments against the Sedition Law:

• Draconian law:
  • In the constituent assembly debates, K.M. Munshi strongly opined that the law is a threat to democracy because it stifles the criticism of the government. Through his efforts, the word ‘sedition’ was omitted from the draft constitution in 1948.
  • Many democratic countries including Britain, South Korea, Scotland, Indonesia, the US (struck down major parts) have also done away with this law.
• Weaponization of the law against political rivals: As per the Kedar Nath judgment 1962, the sedition law was supposed to be applied in rare instances where the security and sovereignty of the country is threatened. However, many political scientists are of view that this law is being weaponized as a handy tool against political rivals.
• Lower conviction rate: As per NCRB data, the conversion rate from cases to conviction is a mere 3%. This indiscriminate use of the law suggests that the law is being used to silence any criticisms or dissent against the regime and hence, goes against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified by India.
• Spurious interpretation of the law by the executive: The Delhi High Court in Disha Ravi Case and the Supreme Court in sedition case against Telugu news channels have shown concerns related to poor definition of the sedition law as it neither clearly states nor provides a broad outline of what can be classified as seditious. So, the executive may use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power.

Arguments in favour of the Sedition Law:

• Political stability: The law has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements. In India, many districts are facing Maoist insurgency and rebel groups who virtually run a parallel administration and openly advocate overthrow of the State or plan to do so. The law thus protects the State and its organs from attempts to overthrow it to create political instability in the country.
• Judicial acceptance: Even the Supreme Court of India, in KedarNath case 1962, expressed similar sentiments, when the court upheld the law on the basis that it provides power to the State to protect itself.

A democracy requires citizens to actively participate in debates and express their constructive criticisms of government policies. Therefore, the Sedition law should be used only in rare cases. In this context, the Law Commission (2018 report) has rightly recommended that Section 124A should either be repealed or should be invoked only if there is an intention to disrupt public order or overthrow the State with violence and illegal means.