OPINIONEDITORIAL

April21,2011

Repealtheseditionlaw
IhavenodesirewhatsoevertoconcealfromthiscourtthefactthattopreachdisaffectiontowardstheexistingsystemofGovernmenthas
almostbecomeapassionwithme,declaredMahatmaGandhiin1922,whilepleadingguiltytoseditionascharged.Affectioncannotbe
manufacturedorregulatedbylaw,hewentontosaymemorably,describingSection124Aastheprinceamongthepoliticalsectionsofthe
IndianPenalCodedesignedtosuppresslibertyofthecitizen.Thecase,whichrelatedtotwoarticlespennedinYoungIndia,endedwitha
reluctantjudge,boundbytheletterofthelaw,sentencingtheMahatmatosixyearsinprisoninthesamebreath,henotedthatnoonewould
bebetterpleasedwerethemanhesentencedreleasedearlier.IfGandhithoughtitwasaprivilegetobechargedunderSection124A,itwas
becausesomeofthemostlovedofIndia'spatriotshavebeenconvictedunderitmostfamously,BalGangadharTilakwho,when
prosecutedforhisspeechesandwritingstwice,askedeachtimewhetherhewasguiltyofcommittingseditionagainsttheBritishgovernment
oragainstthepeopleofthecountry.Thatthisisanarchaiccolonialeralawthathasnoplaceinanydemocracythatvaluesfreedomof
expressionwasrecognisedbynolessthanPrimeMinisterJawaharlalNehru,whotoldParliamentin1951thathefoundSection124Ahighly
objectionableandobnoxious.Thesoonerwegotridofitthebetter,washisopinionofthebroadandinexactprovisionthatpunishesthose
who,byuseofwords,signsorvisiblerepresentation,bringintohatredorcontemptorexcitedisaffectiontowardsthegovernmentwitha
maximumoflifeimprisonment.
Thisraisestheobviousquestion:whydoestheprovisionstillremaininourstatutebooks?Andjustaspertinently:whyisitusedtothreaten
andprosecuteourthinkersandsocialactivistsbecauseofanopiniontheyexpressoranideologytheymayhavesomesympathywith?The
convictionbyaSessionsCourtofcivilrightsactivistBinayakSenunderSection124AforhisallegedlinkswithaMaoistideologue,andthe
seditioncaseregisteredagainstwriterArundhatiRoyoveraspeechshemadeinKashmir,arejusttwohighprofilecasesoftheoutrageous
misuseofthelaw.MsRoyisrightinsayingthatlittlepinholesoflighthaveemergedfromtherecentSupremeCourtordergrantingbailto
BinayakSen,inwhichitsaidnocaseofseditionhasbeenmadeoutandwhereitdrewadistinctionbetweenmerelysympathisingwitha
movementandcommittinganoffenceunderSection124A.Withinhoursoftheorder,LawMinisterVeerappaMoilydeclaredtherewasa
needtoreviewtheseditionlawandthattheLawCommissionofIndiawouldbeaskedtotakeafreshlookatit.Whilethisisapositive
development,theimportantthingistoscrapSection124Aandquickly.
Aclimateinwhichitispermissibletoexpresspoliticaldissentandquestionevensavagegovernmentpolicyisintegraltotheideaof
freeexpression.TheSupremeCourtmayhaveupheldtheconstitutionalvalidityofSection124AinKedarNathSinghvs.StateofBihar
(1962),butmadeitmorethanclearthatseditiondoesnotapplytomerecriticismofgovernmentaction,howeverstronglyworded.The
operationoftheprovision,thefivememberbenchruled,wouldbelimitedtocaseswherewhatissaidorspokenincitesviolenceandpublic
disorderalineofthoughtthatbroadlyconformstoJohnStuartMill'sfamousharmprinciple,'whichsuggeststhattheonlyjustificationfor
curbingaperson'sexpressionagainsthiswillistopreventhimfromcausingharmtoothers.Unfortunately,ourprosecutingauthoritiesand
thelowerjudiciaryhavefailedtounderstandthatthescopeoftheseditionlawisseverelylimited.Otherwise,amagistratewouldnothave
orderedaseditioncaseagainstMsRoyforsaying,ataseminar,thatKashmir'sstatuswasnotsettleddespiteaccessiontoIndia.Anda
sessionscourtwouldnothaveheldthatpossessingMaoistliterature,asBinayakSenwaschargedwithhaving,wouldconstituteagroundfor
treatingthepersonasasubversive.AstheSupremeCourtsarcasticallyobserved,IfacopyofGandhi'sautobiographywerefoundin
somebody'splace,canhebecalledaGandhian?
Section124AwasnotapartoftheoriginalIndianPenalCode1860.Itwasintroduced10yearslaterandthenamendedin1898toinclude
seditiouslibel(bringingthegovernmentintohatredorcontempt).Itisdistressingthatweareslappingseditioncasesonpeoplewhenthe
offencehasbeenrenderedobsoleteinmanycountries,eitherthroughaformalscrappingoftheseditionlaworbyrenderingitvirtually
toothlessbecauseofjudicialrulings.Overtheyears,theUnitedStateshashadaslewoflawsmakingitanoffencetobringitsgovernmentinto
hatredorcontempt.SomeliketheSeditionActof1918havebeenrepealedothersliketheSmithAct,whichwasenactedin1940,havebeen
madeadeadletterthankstoSupremeCourtintervention.Thelastcompletedtrialinacaseofsedition(acommonlawoffence)inBritain
datesbackto1947.Evenso,theBritishgovernmentthoughtitfittoabolishtheoffencesofseditionandseditiouslibelinearly2010.Oneof
thereasonscitedforscrappingtheseoffencesobsoletethoughtheyhadbecomewasthattheirformalexistenceinBritainwasusedby
othercountriestojustifytheirretentionandusethemtosuppresspoliticaldissent.Thereisnoplaceinademocracyforalawthatconflates
disaffectionwithdisloyaltyandregardstrenchantcriticismasaformoftreason.WhatwasonceaninstrumentbyBritishcolonialismto
suppressthefreedomstrugglecannotberetainedbythestatetosilencethevoicesofitsownpeople.It'stimeSection124Awassenttowhere
itreallybelongstothescrapheapofrepealedlaws.