|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 21 June 2023
Sedition Law
LAW PANEL REPORT OUTDATED!
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The Law
Commission of India’s 297threport ‘Usage of the Law of Sedition’,
would come as a great disappointment to civil and human rights’ activists. A
year after the Supreme Court ordered a halt on all proceedings and registering
of fresh cases under the sedition law, the report has strongly recommended
retaining the sedition offence, albeit with some substantive and procedural
safeguards. While acknowledging the grave misuse of the law, both by colonial
and post-colonial governments, the report conveniently attributes the misuse to
police ‘complicity’ and ‘whimsical’ interpretations. There is no mention
whatsoever of political complicity in misusing the law for the ruling party’s
gains and suppressing the Opposition.
The
question that arises is whether India needs a sedition law. This can be
strongly questioned for three reasons: One, the law of sedition was framed by
the Britishers to suppress the rebellious Indians, who were engaged in
activities which were against the decorum of the colonial rule and is hence out
of place in a democratic republic; Two, the law of sedition is more likely to
be a law for which the political parties crave for their own benefits as the
ruling party has been found to misuse the power against anyone questioning its policies
and criticising the government’s functioning;
and three, the existing provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) are
sufficient to address all threats to violence and public order.
It may
be stated that the law on sedition was deliberately designed to be vague and
ambiguous, serving the agenda of preserving an undemocratic State -- the
colonial government. Its purpose was to suppress dissent and criticism. Recall,
the law was used against J. C. Bose for criticising the Age of Consent Bill, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak for writing articles in newspapers and Kamal Krishna Sircar for
condemning a law declaring labour organisation illegal.
The
sedition law is a contentious law that civil liberties activists, human rights
lawyers and journalists have questioned. Many have argued that India’s sedition
law is long past its expiry date. The global movement has been overwhelmingly
anti-sedition with different countries either easing the law or simply getting
rid of it. Many democratic countries, including the United Kingdom, Ireland,
Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda, have held sedition law as
undemocratic, undesirable and unnecessary.
There
has been an intense debate about its present-day relevance in view of the
government’s misuse to silence criticism of opponents. As is well known,
sedition cases have been filed against citizens for raising slogans, for
participating in protest meetings, for reporting on the second wave of
Covid-19, covering rape cases, and supporting the demands of protesters among
others. However, while the Commission makes a token reference to the fact of free
speech being the hallmark of democracy, it goes on to present sedition as a
reasonable restriction to free speech, considering what it calls “stark ground
realities”.
What
these ground realities are has not been explained though the report referred to
Maoist extremism, ethnic conflicts, terrorism etc. Social analysts would
attribute these as examples of social and economic exploitation of the poor and
the lower castes, the stagnant economy of the countryside and spectre of
squalor and poverty of a section of the population. This is just an
expression of protest, turning violent, just to air the grievances that may
have continued for long. Even the recent protests in Manipur leading to over
100 deaths and displacement of over 45,000 people is an expression of economic
exploitation of the tribals as also their deprivation but has nothing to do
with sedition.
The
Commission suggested implementation of procedural guidelines and preliminary
inquiry before registering an FIR. While this may, to a limited extent, reduce
arbitrariness and police power, the track record of our executive bodies in
ensuring impartiality and transparency makes it evident that this
recommendation is simply an empty gesture.
The
report also proposes amending the provision to include the phrase “with a
tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder” aligning with the apex
court’s decision in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) where it
clarified that only speech that has the tendency to incite violence or create
public disorder would be criminalised. But this appears quite vague, and the
State would be free to use it to its advantage.
There
can be no justification in continuing with this colonial law as this clearly
impinges on the right to protest and air grievances freely in a democratic
society like ours. Only an authoritarian government would like to continue with
such a law as is being widely perceived in India. The situation in the country
is increasingly witness to the fact that the right to dissent is being eroded or
even being taken away by the ruling dispensation. And in this regard, the
minorities, specially the Muslims have been the worst affected victims.
Though a
section of experts may vouch for continuation of the law, there is need for
more clarity of when this law could be imposed on the citizens. Mere protest
and movements against government policies and decisions cannot be deemed to be
seditious. However, this was the case during the farmers’ movement for which
Twitter was threatened to shut down operations in India. Even a few days back,
the Editors Guild of India urged political parties not the harass or intimidate
journalists and media houses for doing their job honestly.
There
can be no denying that there has been a staggering increase in charges by
around 160 percent between 2016 and 2019, as per theNational Crime Records
Bureau(NCRB) statistics. Surprisingly, the conviction rate remained only at 3
percent. It is evident that the Supreme Court recognised the misuse of the law,
which prompted it last year to impose a ban on all trials, appeals, and
proceedings related to charges framed under Section 124(A), keeping these in
abeyance.It had granted the Centre time to re-examine the law and reconsider
its application.
The Law
panel now has recommended the inclusion of the word “tendency” in the sedition
law. The panel asserts that the phrase “tendency to incite violence or cause
public disorder” is defined as a “mere inclination to incite violence or cause
public disorder,” rather than requiring proof of actual violence or an imminent
threat of violence. If this interpretation implies that a mere inclination to
incite violence and support public disorder is sufficient to invoke this
draconian provision, even when it is not desired, it renders the provision
vague.
Social
transformation cannot become a reality if dissent is not tolerated. One may
recall that Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked that sedition was intended to
suppress the freedom of citizens. Already surveys have pointed out that civil
protest has been on the wane due to fear of the authorities taking drastic
action against them. Even the middle class, who has been the beneficiaries of
the pro-rich reforms initiated by the government, has kept itself away from
joining protest movements. Even in educational institutions, the autonomy has
been taken away and the government’s perverted actions are being imposed.
There must
be a change and even though the use of the sedition law has been put on hold, law
enforcing agencies need to work judiciously, keeping the interests of the
people in mind. Though this is easier said than implemented, all eyes would be
on the final word of the country’s apex court. Or what the temple of democracy,
Parliament, will do. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
