India needs to continue having the law on sedition with some modification

Before I start writing about Sedition, which is one of the most talkative issues these days, I want to highlight some points from the preamble of the Indian Constitution. The Preamble of the Indian constitution says:-
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship;
EQUALITY of status and opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
If we interpret Preamble, which is an introductory statement of our constitution, Indian people are conferred with some rights and principles which are essential for nation building. And to conserve these rights and to implement them across the country, we have Judiciary and Governance system, distributed among the nation, state, cities etc. We also have Indian Penal Code (IPC) which defines offences against these rights and punishment for offenders as well. However, what should be the limit of penalties and which activities are crimes and which are not, is taken from the constitution.
Therefore, if we see, our constitution is giving us freedom of speech to express ourselves and also asking us to be part of an India for which Sovereignty is at the top.
Now, article 124 A says that – 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 dissatisfaction towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added or with fine.
So, article 124 A is trying to protect a body, i.e. Government, which was made to conserve people rights. Also, Indian people select this body, democratically, by-elections only.
Now, let us talk about some cases in the recent past, which has given a boom to question of scrapping sedition law. Delhi Police arrested 10 JNU students in February 2016 on holding an “anti-national event” where slogans like, “Bharat Tere Tukde honge”, “Tum kitne Afzal maroge, Har ghar se Afzal niklega” were shouted. Talking about the above-mentioned preamble of the constitution, these dialogues are enough to catch someone as they may easily incite people to go, fight against them and do any wrongdoing.
If Police was wrong to catch them then should we wait for incitement and violence to take place after these kinds of comments are made? And why do we have a boundary of sedition case, why do we keep it for offending against the government only. Why do our focus goes into those moments when these things are said against the government, instead are we not mature enough to understand\interpret the motive of the comment. If Kanhiya Kumar is making a comment against the country, saying that Tukde honge, Afzal guru, then why are we waiting for this thing to happen, If Kanhiya’s statement would have incited a few people of JNU and would have killed some students, were we waiting for that only. If Delhi Police went and caught them saying that they knew there were certain remarks made in this direction, then why are we blaming Police?
Why would Police go and catch some university students? And if you are taking it a political agenda where if those students were protesting against the ruling government and government wanted to suppress them then what is the autonomy of Police in our country. Does it mean Police, Army other forces, everything works under the pressure of the ruling government? And if it is so, then I don’t think we are a democratic country. We are more of China where a few bunches of people run everything.
Political parties always like to take advantage of this kind of situation against the ruling government. After the Kanhaiya Kumar arrest, Congress leader Kapil Sibbal said, “The law was taken from British law and is not used in the UK as well these days.” But a similar type of situation was with Arundhati Roy and Sayeed Ali Shah Gilani in 2010 as well then why did people not protested against the law of sedition at that time? Why did Congress not scrap it in last 60 years when they were ruling, and cases of Balwant Singh and Kedar Singh came?
And this situation is with every political party and alliance, be it NDA or UPA. People have been accusing the government of using this law for their benefits by showing their power in cases like Kishorechandra Wangkhem last year and Hiren Gohain this year.
However, If the government is using it for their benefit, then the Supreme Court is there to see. Many people make useless cases in court that the government has to defend and Courts are there to keep an eye on the fundamental rights of people. It’s not that any particular government have a monopoly to it. The government keeps on changing.
A similar case was registered for Hardik Patel when he said, “ Kuch karna hi chahte ho to two-four police walo ko maro, koi Patidarko yuvak nahi marna chaiye.”. Do these kinds of dialogues should not be taken under sedition?
And there is no other section available apart from sec 124 A if someone is talking about incitement and violence in terms of the overthrow of the government. If Parliament does not have a law, then they will consider it under Sedition law.
If someone feels offended by any quote, then there is a defamation law as well.
We all can criticise anyone, but it’s the motive that matters. You might be a genuine critic who is affected by it or you might be someone who wants to take a political platform to make your career.
There should be a line defining this law. This law is the need of our country but in a new form which can wide its range and remove unnecessary elements. It should also keep punishment for people who are misusing it. And it should also keep away forces away from it. Because if in Delhi Police case, they caught Kanhaiya and we are saying that Government drove Police then there is no trust in our forces as well.