“If we stifle criticism of these institutions, we shall become a police state instead of a democracy.”[1]
Justice Deepak Gupta
Introduction
India recently celebrated its 74th Independence Day, which in my opinion, has a lot to do with the law of sedition in India. Should you assess freedom in the context of sedition? Of course, yes! You might now be asking – ‘What about the freedom of speech? Should not we lay more emphasis on freedom of expression rather than sedition? What about the recent cases? Notable cases of sedition include Praveen Togadia, Simranjit Singh Mann, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Aseem Trivedi, Kahaniya Kuar, and Rinshad Reera. One must analyze these relevant cases alongside the other cases at all costs. But what is the profit? It’s a true understanding of the word sedition and its real position in India.
What is Sedition?
The Constitution of India recognized a citizen’s freedom of speech, which is crucial for a democratic country like India.[2] However, every person expresses his/her feelings differently than the other. He may or may not speak or write against the State. Or maybe he can express his feelings in other forms of visual representation either in agreement or disagreement. There are also slight chances that he may invoke hatred or contempt with such an act.
Many interpret sedition as an offense against public tranquillity and connect it in some way or the other with public disorder.[3] The Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as the “IPC”) defines it as any words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, that could bring or attempt to bring either hatred, or contempt, or excite or bring to excite any disaffection (including disloyalty or any feeling of enmity) towards the Government established by law. It is a criminal offense under IPC, which attracts imprisonment for life or up to three years, to which the court can also levy the fine. The court can also charge the convict for fine only.[4]
Its explanation further provides for the comments which do not constitute an offense under IPC. These comments include:
The below statements do not establish a wrongdoing if they do not excite or attempt to excite abhorrence, disdain or estrangement in the country.
Any statement which expresses disfavor of:
- The administrative or other action[5], and
- The actions of the Government intending to acquire their modification by legal manner.[6]
The constitutional validity and the relation with the freedom of speech
The constitutional validity of the law of the sedition is a long talk. There are four decisions of the apex court, which one must read in context with the fundamental rights. Upon reading these decisions, one can draw a mere conclusion concerning the constitutional validity and its relation with freedom of speech. These cases are:
- Tara Singh Gopi Chand v The State[7]
- Sabir Raza v. The State[8]
- Ram Nandan v. The State[9]
- Kedar Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar[10]
Case of Tara Singh and Sabir Raza
The Courts in the case of Tara Singh and Sabir Raza did not involve the decision of deciding constitutional validity. The courts themselves opined that Section 124A became void on the enforcement of the Constitution.
Case of Ram Nandan v. The State
In this decision, the Allahabad High Court decided the constitutional validity of the law of sedition and declared it void. It held that the representatives who composed a part of the Government were men who structure relevant queries of policy and require a brawny opposition in Parliament. It also remarked that the voguish favor or disfavor of the people also subjugates the Government, aside from the opposition.
Case of Kedar Nath Singh
In this case, the apex court in 1962, overruled the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The law of sedition was held valid and constitutional. It remarked how disloyal comments differ against the comments which ferment public disorder with the acts of barbarity. It opined that only when it is construed that the words, written and spoken, etc., which have the malicious inclination or purpose of constructing public disorder, disruption of the law and order, the law marches in to avert such activities in the interest of public order. Only then the section strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of the public order.
The Court further held that a citizen has a right to speak or inscribe whatever he adores concerning the Government, or its actions. He can do this by way of criticisms or comments. Such comments or criticisms should not stimulate people to express ferocity against the Government recognized by law or have the target of constructing public disorder.
Popular Cases
The popularity of the sedition is too high in India. Maybe the people have started to enjoy the authority that the British enjoyed years ago.
Praveen Togadia
The Rajasthan police bashed the charge of sedition on the former president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (AHP) Praveen Togadiya on April 16, 2003. These charges included the endeavor to instigate war against the nation.[11] The Court released him on bail on the condition that he would not distribute tridents again. He, whilst disobeying a state government prohibition, distributed tridents to Bajrang Dal campaigners in Ajmer. The Rajasthan Government jailed him for defying prohibitory orders also charged him falsely under Section 121-A[12] of the IPC.[13]
Simranjit Singh Mann (2005)
The Punjab police on June 13, 2005, arrested Simranjit Singh Mann, the president of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar). It charged him with sections under Sec. 124-A, 153A, 153B, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code for raising the issue of Khalistan. The Additional District and Sessions Court of Amritsar on September 8, 2018, admitted the registered case after a long span of 12 years.[14]
Binayak Sen (2007)
Chhattisgarh police, on May 14, 2007, arrested Binayak Sen, the president of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). The police bashed him with the charges of sedition.[15] Police contended that Binayak allegedly provided support to the Naxalites and violated Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA)[16] and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP).[17] The Raipur Sessions Court held him guilty under Sec. 124A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him life imprisonment in 2010.[18]
The Supreme Court of India, in 2011, upon an appeal made by Sen, granted him bail. The Court provided no reason for such an order. Sen filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court, on January 7, 2011, against the judgment of life imprisonment, which the Court admitted.[19]
Arundhati Roy (2010)
Delhi police on November 29, 2010, booked Arundhati Roy alongside some others,[20] under Sec. 124A, 153A, 153B, 504, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code.[21] They were booked for making anti-India remarks at a seminar. These remarks included the demand for independence of Kashmir from India. [22] However, the State failed to prove the charges in the judiciary.[23]
Kahaniya Kumar (2016)
Delhi police, on February 12, 2016, charged Kahaniya Kumar for sedition and criminal conspiracy. He was charged for yelling anti-India slogans during an occasion organized in the Delhi University.[24] Following Patiala House Court events[25], the apex court transferred Kumar’s plea for bail to Delhi High Court for ensuring his safety.[26] The court granted him six months interim bail on March 2, 2016.[27] An investigation committee set-up by the Delhi government[28] and later an inquiry committee by the JNU administration[29] did not find any evidence against Kumar.
Conclusion
As discussed above, one should analyze certain essential elements before considering a statement, word, cartoon, etc., seditious. Such essentials are required for clarity and the essence of sedition. The Court in its judgments made clear how significant is Sec. 124A is. However, one must apply due diligence before applying the application of such section. Its application invites the steadiness of the State and gives the Government a tool for effectively battling anti-national secessionist terrorist elements. However, there is a variance in understanding between the actual application of Section 124A and the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Many people called for a repeal to the section. They also termed this section as a Draconian law. However, the recent focus on nationalistic agendas made this law only stronger. Is there any way that a correct balance can be struck?
References
[1] Justice Deepak Gupta, A workshop organised by the Praleen Public Charitable Trust and Lecture Committee in Ahmedabad, TheWire, (Sep 8, 2019), https://thewire.in/law/justice-deepak-gupta-supreme-court-sedition
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 1s9
[3] Brij Bhushan and Anr. v. The State Of Delhi, 1950 Supp SCR 245
[4] Section 124A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860
[5] Ibid, Explanation 3
[6] Ibid, Explanation 2
[7] 1951 Cri LJ 449
[8] Cri App No. 1434 of 1955, D/- 11-2-1958
[9] AIR 1959 All 101
[10] 1962 AIR 955
[11] TH Correspondent, Togadia defies ban, distributes tridents, The Hindu Epaper, (April 14, 2003), https://web.archive.org/web/20090218171206/http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/04/14/stories/2003041404280100.htm
[12] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860
[13] Sedition charges in India: Before Kanhaiya, Umar there were others, hindustantimes, (Feb 26, 2016, 10:17 A.M. IST), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/sedition-charges-in-india-before-kanhaiya-umar-there-were-others/story-AmfCjaRdkhUKYUMzatAGzJ.html
[14] TI Correspondent, Mann acquitted in sedition case, Tribune India, (Sep 9, 2018, 01:34 A.M. IST), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/punjab/mann-acquitted-in-sedition-case-650003
[15] PTI, Dr Binayak Sen found guilty of sedition, gets life imprisonment, Times of India, (Dec 24, 2010, 01:44 P.M. IST), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dr-Binayak-Sen-found-guilty-of-sedition-gets-life-imprisonment/articleshow/7156208.cms
[16] Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005, No. 13, Acts of Chhattisgarh Legislature, 2006
[17] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, No. 37, Acts of Parliament, 1967
[18] Supra note 16
[19] PTI, Chhattisgarh high court admits Binayak Sen’s appeal against life sentence, DNA India, (Jan 8, 2011, 01:42 A.M. IST), https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chhattisgarh-high-court-admits-binayak-sen-s-appeal-against-life-sentence-1491763
[20] Staff Reporter, Case registered against Arundhati, Geelani, The Hindu, (Nov 29, 2010, 09:42 IST), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Case-registered-against-Arundhati-Geelani/article15720947.ece
[21] Supra note 11
[22] Supra note 19
[23] Samanwaya Rautray, Section 124A: From Mahatma Gandhi to Arundhati Roy, sedition charges often invoked but rarely stick, (Feb 17, 2016, 06:30 A.M. IST),
[24] PTI, JNU row: A timeline of events, DNA India, (Mar 03, 2016, (10:02 P.M. IST), https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-from-anti-national-slogans-to-kanhaiya-kumar-s-bail-here-is-how-jnu-row-has-unfolded-so-far-2184960
[25] Ibid
[26] Supra note 23
[27] Ibid
[28] PTI, JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar gets clean chit, The Economic Times, (Mar 03, 2016, 04:15 P.M. IST), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/jnusu-president-kanhaiya-kumar-gets-clean-chit-in-aap-government-appointed-probe/articleshow/51240113.cms
[29] The Staff, JNU row: Provocative slogans were shouted by outsiders, says university’s probe panel, Zee News, (Mar 16, 2016, 03:26 A.M. IST), https://zeenews.india.com/news/india/jnu-row-provocative-slogans-were-shouted-by-outsiders-says-universitys-probe-panel_1866104.html
0 Comments