Open Access Research Article
NAVIGATING SEDITION: THE INTERSECTION OF SEDITION LAW AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
NAVIGATING SEDITION: THE
INTERSECTION OF SEDITION LAW AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY- AKSHAY ANAND,
Final Year Law Student, Law College Dehradun,
Uttaranchal University, Dehradun
CO-AUTHOR- PROF. KHALEEQ AHMAD,
Assistant Professor in Law, Law College
Dehradun,
Uttaranchal University, Dehradun
ABSTRACT
A divisive topic in India since independence
and the adoption of our Constitution has always been in the context of colonial
law. Anything, which arouses a sense of “disaffection” against the government,
is forbidden by sedition. Sedition is defined as anything written or spoken,
any sign or visual representation, or otherwise done to bring contempt, hatred,
or contempt against any act of government, giving the law, as stated under IPC
section 124A, the broadest possible meaning. Many times, the opponents of this
legislation have claimed that it is frequently employed to stifle opposition
and restrict freedom of speech and expression. Together examining the most
recent sedition cases, the article examines the background and history of
sedition law and its application in the present. The significance of the
legislation on the democratic principles of the national Constitution is
attempted to be understood in this study. The article concludes that
uncontrolled, sedition legislation can be used to stifle opposition and
compromise democratic values of “freedom, speech and expression”. National
security and preserving democratic principles of freedom of speech and
expression must therefore be balanced. The study intends to add to the
discussion on the sedition statute and how it affects Indian freedom of
expression today.
Keyword: IPC, Government, Writ Petition,
Sedition, Legislation
Introduction
The liberal premise that there should be a
place where an individual is free from social pressure gives rise to the
visualization of freedom of speech. Sedition cannot be acknowledged to be one
of the validations for limiting “freedom of speech and expression”. The word
"sedition" has varied meanings in English law; 150 years ago, it was
used to describe gatherings or parades. Latin in origin, the term
"sedition" in Roman times meant insurrectionary schism (political or
military), civil disturbance, or revolt. Surely, be emphasized that the title
"sedition" is not present in the Indian constitution and that it is
not a crime against the state if it is a state-sponsored crime as defined in
IPC, unless article 19 of the constitution is in the true context. Sedition, as
understood in modern India, is any action—written, verbal, or physical—that is
thought to disturb the peace of the state and encourage ignorant people to
disparage the government. "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 inspires or attempts to incite disaffection
towards, the Government constituted by law," states Section 124-A of the
Indian Penal Code and now as The politic working body has advanced, and the
right to free speech has been established as a fundamental right, therefore the
legitimacy of India's sedition laws has been called into question. The law of
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was formed by other acts, but the
general statement of law was the same throughout and could be gleaned.
1.
Constitutional
perspective and developments on sedition law
The very first amendment made by the Apex
Court of India was from the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras and since
the modern democratic government by a comparative medium has always questioned
its validity in a democratic country. In the work "Freedom of Speech and
Sedition in India," RK MISRA questions the validity of sedition law
post-independence. Following the Indian uprising movement in 1857, the British
made sedition illegal to manage riots and protests, and it is appalling and
raises the issue of "why" this law still exists in liberal India. A
measure employed against its inhabitant’s during colonialism is a sign of how
regressive and ineffective India is, even though it is a democratic liberal
nation. Not only that, it has also been said to violate “Article 19(1)(a), our
Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression”. Understand the
importance and show the significance of this Right through several rulings
before exploring sedition. Ramlila Maidan Incident Case gives it significance. The
court judgment focused on the right operation of the democratic process depends
on the freedom of speech, and it is the cornerstone of any democratic form of
government. They also noticed that the first essential of liberty is considered
to be freedom of speech and expression. It is essential to the way that the
public views social, political, and economic issues are formed. The court noted
in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI AIR 20 SC 3829 that such right
extends to ideas and views that are not only accepted but sometimes those that
may violate someone’s right or shock any segment of society.
The fundamental principles of a free society
are explained by the Court in Union of India v. Motion Picture Association AIR
1999 SC 2334 as the unrestricted exchange of ideas, knowledge, debate, and the
airing of opposing viewpoints. That type of right in the Constitution covers
several facets of individuals' freedom to express and convey ideas and
thoughts, whether or not they are popular. We have this right guaranteed in our
constitution. It highlights even more the commitment expressed in our preamble
to protect the freedom of opinion and speech of all its citizens. In Romesh
Thapar v. Union of India, this Right is cited as the cornerstone of a democratic
form of government, without which open and free political debates the political
education is incomplete, impeding the ideal operation of a government. This in
and of itself demonstrates the great regard with which Indian courts have
handled and taken this privilege.
Turning now to sedition, it was employed as a
weapon to stifle the few educated, free-thinking liberals of the day. By making
it illegal, it seeks to accomplish the same goal; the only difference is that
every single person has opinions, access to information, and a desire to
improve their nation. A journalist in the recent Vinod Dua v. Union of India
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.154 OF 2020 in the case he was charged with sedition
charges for criticizing the government in an online video. Similar charges have
previously been filed under Sedition for liking a Facebook page, giving a
speech emphasizing the horrors carried out by the forces who were armed,
allegedly inciting violence with cartoons, supporting the Pakistan team in a
match of cricket against India, speculating real heroes in an exam, and
criticizing a yoga expert. This most certainly isn't the "freedom"
that the Constitution's writers intended for the people to enjoy. In Kedar Nath
Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 was one of the seminal instances that
called into doubt the legality of Section 124A back in 1962. After much abuse,
the Supreme Court considered the validity of Section 124A and resolved the
ambiguity since the provision's wording allowed for a wide range of interpretations
that may include any activity. The court established several guidelines that
indicate when the section is applicable. One crucial component was noted and
reaffirmed: "A person should not be held guilty of sedition as long as
they do not incite people to violence against the Government established by law
or to create public disorder." Because it both made the law clear and
limited its application, this ruling was historic. Sadly, very few people get
this interpretation. The social shame of being called an "accused" in
a criminal case and the emotional suffering one does not deserve (usually) to
undergo is not made up for even if the court finds the individual accused of
sedition innocent.
Sedition is a statute that restricts any kind
of hate speech disaffection towards the government, however, section 124 is
being fully used by our current administration. As of right now, the term
"state" has come to represent religion. Their faith is so brittle
that a joke by a comedian or an opinion presented by a journalist threatens
their religion and beliefs to such an extent that such individuals framed with
sedition charges beaten, or even killed. They claim to uphold their religion so
high and expect the same from the entire nation highlighting the most basic
manifestations of anti-constitutionalism. Comics, artists, and journalists have
moved beyond entertainment to awareness-raising, which is essential for India
today.
2.
Law
of sedition in the context of freedom of speech
'Democracy' and 'Freedom' are the byproducts
of each other. For a democracy to function fully, individual freedom is
crucial. However, as we have already established, sedition laws do serve as an
exception to the general right to freedom of speech. That is why determining if
"Sedition" constitutes a legitimate aberration to the freedoms
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is of the utmost importance.
Although considered that the lack of
validation of section 124-A focuses primarily on remarks that are likely to
provoke violence, it fails to demonstrate any kind of relationship in the Kedar
Nath Case. In addition to the usage of public order requirements, it surely is
fair to the extent of freedom of speech and expression which is required by
section 124A. In a recent scenario, an FIR was lodged against an advocate for
sharing a YouTube video that contained content criticizing the government on
its actions and policies. The government in such an era of people are getting
more access to their open speech and expression is on the verge of getting to social
media and other free speech and expression platforms under their regulations.
To examine if an action about a right is
reasonable, a restriction on a person's enjoyment of a right must not be
arbitrary or excessive. This goes beyond what is crucial for the public good.
“A law that excessively infringes the rights of its citizens cannot be regarded
to possess the quality of reasonableness in context to the sedition law”.
It is impossible to state that section 124-A
maintains the correct balance between freedom of speech about social control.
Furthermore, it does not fulfil the criteria of having a rational connection
with the aim of the legislature by not surpassing that purpose. The breach of
this clause is not simply an intentional endeavour (even if consist no
likelihood of success) to elicit specific reactions. Although the words, signs,
or representation in question would not be a hazard to public order, the
provision of the section is nonetheless. Taking forward, the legislation tries
to suppress the voice of the people who are not satisfied or are pointing out
the wrongdoings of the government.
Freedom of speech is an essential right for a
developing democratic country which must be given.
3.
Impact
of social media on sedition law
In recent times, the legislature has wanted to
regulate social media by framing laws that will regulate social media
influencers who have a certain number of followers as they can impact people
through social media in a single social media interaction. In recent trends, social
media has been the voice of the nation and is the most impactful way of
conveying ideology and point of view on any concern of the nation. The
government itself uses social media nowadays as a medium to convey ideas and
knows its importance and values it. Therefore, Sedition laws threaten Internet
users who have a degrading impact and influence on virtual social
communication, and immediately damage Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and speech.
In India, the government also frames sedition
charges against a social media user, and in the incident of 2016 a social media
user from Haryana was charged for tweeting against a political party. A similar
incident happened when a drawing artist in the year 2012 was arrested for
making a drawing that criticized the parliament and was thereafter charged with
sedition.
4.
Recent
Judicial precedent on sedition law
To discuss the case Kedar Nath is now to be
considered as the old case and there have been many recent cases because of
this fearless generation who are ready to question and point out the government
in case of any wrongdoing by the government or any action that is not suitable.
In the recent case of 2022, a student of Aligarh Muslim University was arrested
under UAPA and sedition for giving hate speech on the university campus in
regards to showing his views on the Citizenship Amendment Act by the central
government.
In recent times, in 2019 December an FIR was
registered against an MP of Shiv Sena on the grounds of writing an objectional
article against the Prime Minister of India.
In a recent case, journalist Vinod Dua was
charged with sedition on the grounds of commenting on the prime minister on his
YouTube show. There are many examples in which individuals are charged with
sedition on the grounds of merely criticizing the government pointing out the
actions or merely commenting.
5.
Effectiveness
of sedition Law in context to freedom of speech
Sedition is defined as any unwillingness to
accept or just express one's dissatisfaction with the government's policies or
laws, which is causing increasing animosity and conflicts among the youth and
citizens. Every Indian has the right to free speech and expression. The
contradiction is that Section 124A of the IPC takes away from the people the
basic right to freely express and voice their thoughts on issues including
State policy and laws made by the government, even if the Constitution grants
the residents of the nation the freedom to do so.
The Government can interpret the word
"disaffection" in any way they see fit, and they frequently misuse it
to punish people for just voicing their dissatisfaction. Criticism and
dissension of the government are necessary for a nation to run well since they promote
lively public discussion and let people voice their views on political issues.
This ought to be supported as the idea of democracy is based on the freedom to
question, criticize, and select their leaders, not as treason.
The basic meaning of Section 124A is
incredibly ambiguous in its phrasing, even though it is important to have
measures that maintain social order for the efficient operation of a nation.
And because of the public humiliation and dishonour the crime brings, it must
be applied with great precision, something the state regrettably lacks as
demonstrated by several cases.
One could argue that the sedition legislation
is also easily replaceable. One such provision is the National Security Act, of
1980, which permits preventative detention in specific situations when the
government believes the individual poses a threat the national security or to
stop individuals from damaging the public order. Article 22(3)(b) covers
preventive detention, so it can only be used in compliance with Parliamentary
legislation. The Offences against Public Tranquilly listed in Chapter VIII of
the IPC provide another superior substitute for sedition. This schedule covers
crimes like rioting, affray, illegal assembly, and animosity between classes.
Furthermore, it is a serious offense even if there is a chance that such an
offense could be committed that could disrupt tranquillity and cause a public
commotion; the actual offense is not required. It penalizes only those crimes
that could upset the balance of the State and endanger public order, not those
that just entail voicing one's dissatisfaction with the institution.
6.
Conclusion
In democratic liberal India, the essential
basis of the nation is "secularism." Still, we have cases of people
being slaughtered or publicly humiliated for no other reason than that they
follow a different faith or have individualistic views. The Kedarnath ruling
states that sedition laws are only meant to be applied seldom. when violence
was to be incited by the deed. Still, several recent events have demonstrated
that this legislation is frequently employed as a political tool to stifle free
speech and opposition of any kind, including political rivals. Authorities are
abusing the ambiguous interpretation of the sedition statute to their use to instil
terror among the people or anyone who voices dissatisfaction with the
government. Many times, the sedition legislation is employed as a tool to make
sure its citizens comply. A journalist Vinod Dua arrested on the charge of
sedition in the context of asking the government about their COVID handling
norms and effectiveness and natural activist Disha Ravi was charged under
sedition for supporting the farmers and her involvement in the online toolkit
and by her tweets which showed support to the farmer. These cases are
unequivocal evidence that authorities frequently abuse and interpret the laws
in ways that serve their political agendas, therefore undermining the intent of
the law. Legislation that finally restricts freedom of speech and expression is
obviously against one's fundamental rights and should not be implemented in a
nation like India.
Article Information
NAVIGATING SEDITION: THE INTERSECTION OF SEDITION LAW AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN INDIA
Authors: AKSHAY ANAND, PROF. KHALEEQ AHMAD
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/27
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.