The infamous Sedition law was introduced in the Indian Penal Code in 1870 to curb the nationalist wave of Indian freedom struggle and was used as a tool by the Britishers to curb dissent. It was time and again invoked by the Britishers against the national freedom fighters like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and others.
Soon after Independence, when the First amendment was introduced, which also ‘reasonably’ restricted the abuse of freedom of speech i.e. Article 19 (2), the then, Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru arguing that the offense of sedition was fundamentally ‘unconstitutional’ had said “now so far as I am concerned (section 124A) is highly objectionable and obnoxious, and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons. The sooner we get rid of it, the better”. However, the sedition law still remains in the Indian Penal code in its archaic form. Although, the terms like ‘British India’ and ‘the Crown’ have been omitted.
Sedition law i.e. IPC 124A actually says “whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or, excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India shall be punishable with life imprisonment”. It further clarifies that the expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of hatred. However, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred; contempt or disaffection does not constitute an offense under this section.
The Indian state has witnessed many cases of sedition such as Kedarnath vs State of Bihar (1962), Balvant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995), Nazir Khan vs State of Delhi (2003). In all the cases, the Supreme court was of the view that mere criticism of the Government or comments on the administration, however vigorous and repugnant or even ill-informed, do not constitute Sedition. Its application was limited to acts involved in inciting violence and intended to disturb law and Order.
The court emphasised that the incitement of violence is an essential ingredient to invoke Sedition Law. It also held that each and every person has the freedom to propagate political ideologies and theories as long as it doesn’t include violence or contradicts any provision of law. Supreme Court being a guarantor of the fundamental rights, has ensured over the past few years that the freedom of speech and expression of citizens is not threatened by draconian state policies.
In modern democracy where freedom of speech and expression is a gem among fundamental rights, the sedition law is often misused by over-enthusiastic and politically influenced investigating agencies. As per the data of Natural Crime Records Bureau(NCB), there has been a spike in sedition cases since the beginning of 2014 – which only signifies that there has been a spike in dissent. However, from 2014 -2016, 179 people were arrested under charges of sedition and the police failed to file a charge sheet in over 80% of the cases and 90% of those filed have been pending trial.
Recently, former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union or JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, was booked by the police under various sections of IPC, along with section 124A. He was accused of sedition for an incident occurred in February 2016, where anti-national slogans were raised allegedly in an event organised against the hanging of Afzal Guru, a convict of Parliament attack in 2001.
While claiming the case to be politically motivated, Kumar has requested a speedy trial. But the police have produced various shreds of evidence against him. The hearing is yet to begin, and it remains to be seen whether the videos produced by police are doctored as claimed by the accused or not. Also, will it again be a victory of freedom of speech over Sedition or will it lead to yet another debate over the limitations of freedom of speech in a democracy where dissent acts as a ‘Safety Valve‘?