EVOLUTION OF SEDITION

LAWS IN INDIA
-By Lokendra Singh Rajpurohit
INTRODUCTION
 Say something bad to me- Its okay!
Say something bad to my family- its not okay, but its okay!
Say something bad about my nation- now you are in trouble!

The sentiments, emotions, anger of Indians can all be seen effortlessly

when they listen to something against their country. They will prove you
wrong with all their sweat and blood. Moreover, they will immediately
put allegations on you for trying to incite them against their nation.
Consequently, they will put you behind bars on SEDITION CHARGES.
And then you will only wonder, what is sedition, what I did wrong and
blah blah.
 What is Sedition?

According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word sedition

means, The use of words or action intended to encourage people to
oppose a government.
According to Google search engine, the word sedition means, an act
or conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of
a state or monarch.
From the above two definitions, it is clear that the word sedition has
two components:
Sedition contains three actions, namely, an act, conduct or a speech.
All these actions are intended to incite people to rebel against the state,
government or the nation.
 Sedition Law-Section 124(A) in
The Indian Penal Code
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Chapter VI deals with
the law on Sedition. It stipulates 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 disaffection 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.
The point worth noting here is, the word sedition is not mentioned
anywhere in the IPC or the Indian Constitution.
It was drafted by Thomas Macaulay and was introduced in the 1870s.
 Later on in post independence era, supreme court made it clear that
allegedly seditious speech and expression may be punished only if the
speech is an incitement to violence, or public disorder.
Therefore, advocating revolution, or advocating even violent
overthrow of the State, does not amount to sedition, unless there is
incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to
imminent violence.
But the law has been used again and again to arrest journalists,
activists and human rights defenders simply for expressing critical views.
EVOLUTION OF SEDITION
LAWS
 What Was The Need For Sedition Laws
In India?
As we know that most of the laws as prevailing in India are the gifts
from the British to us, sedition law is one such law.
The sedition law was introduced as an offence through clause 113 of
the Draft Indian Penal Code by Thomas Macaulay in the year 1837.
The reason for its incorporation in the draft was the increase in rebel by
the Indian revolutionaries against the company rulers. The British seeing
that the Indians were spreading hatred against them felt the need of a
law which can suppress their rebel. As a result, the law of Sedition was
introduced in the draft of Indian Penal Code.
However, the Law of Sedition was not present in the original Indian
Penal Code of 1860. It was in 1870 when due to rising rebels and unrest,
the British government amended the Indian Penal Code and inserted
Sec 124A.
So we can say that the Law of Sedition took birth in 1870 in India.
 How Was The Law Of Sedition Used Against
Indian Freedom Fighters?
It was a matter of privilege for Indian freedom fighters to be behind bars
under the charges of 124A, as said by the Father of the Nation, Section
124A, under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the
political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty
of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by the law.
If one has no affection for a person, one should be free to give the fullest
expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate,
promote or incite to violence. Mahatma Gandhi, March 1922.
The year 1892 saw the first recorded state trial for sedition in Queen
Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose. The judgment laid down a distinction
between disaffection and disapprobation, and observed: It is
sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used were
calculated to excite feelings of ill-will against the Government, and to hold
it up to the hatred and contempt of the people, and that they were used
with an intention to create such feeling.
 In 1898, in the case of Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar
Tilak, the scope of the offense was expanded by the
colonial courts and mere attempts to incite feelings of
disaffection could be seen as sedition.
The Tilak case defined sedition law under Section 124A for
the first time as follows: The offense consists in exciting or
attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards
the government. It is not the exciting or attempting to
excite mutiny or rebellion or any sort of actual disturbance,
great or small. Whether any disturbance or outbreak was
caused by these articles is absolutely immaterial.
The sedition law got more famous after the father of our
nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was jailed under
the charges of sedition. Mahatma Gandhi was arrested by
the British police on March 10 in 1922 for writing three
politically sensitive articles in his weekly journal Young
India, which was published from 1919 to 1932. Gandhi was
sentenced to a six-year jail term. Three charges were
imposed on Gandhi; they were tampering with loyalty,
shaking the manes and attempt to excite disaffection
towards the British government.
 Use of Sedition Law in Post-Independence
ERA
In the post-independence era, there are repeated instances of misuse. It has been
used arbitrarily to curb dissent. Its main target have been writers, journalist, activists
who question government policy and projects.
Some of the instances where sedition charges were put on people are as follows:
In September 2001, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested after a complaint that his
cartoons mocked the constitution and national emblem. The charges were
dropped a month later following widespread criticism and public protests.
In 2010, author and activist Arundhati Roy and Kashmiri separatist leader Syed Ali
Shah Geelani were threatened with sedition charges for publicly speaking in favor
of Kashmiri secession.
In 2012 and 2013, an astonishing number of 23,000 men and women who protested
against a nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu were held for "waging war against the
state.
In March 2014, 60 Kashmiri students in Uttar Pradesh were charged with sedition for
cheering for Pakistan in a cricket match against India. Authorities dropped the
charges following legal advice from the law ministry.
 In August 2014, authorities in Kerala charged seven young men, including students,
with sedition after a complaint that they had refused to stand up during the
national anthem in a cinema.
In October 2015, folk singer S Kovan was held in Tamil Nadu for two songs criticizing
the state government for allegedly profiting from state-owned liquor shops at the
expense of the poor.
In February 2016, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested and charged with
sedition for allegedly shouting anti-India slogans. He was later freed on bail.

From people objecting to the nuclear plants at Kudnakulam, to writers like Arundhati
Roy, to journalists and cartoonists like Aseem Trivedi and to social activists, there is
sufficiency of evidence to exemplify the indiscriminate manner in which this provision
has been used.
 Do We Need Sedition Laws In Present Day
Republic India?
The law of sedition was introduced by the Colonial Government to
suppress the voices of Indians against them. But now, the Colonial
Government has gone; India is an independent country. So do we still
need sedition law? If yes, then for whom? And if no, then on what
grounds?
The Indian pledge starts with; India is my country. All Indians are my
brothers and sisters, but these lines have an exception, not all Indians
are united. There are some people within the country who cant see
the country growing, who dont want peace, who want to break the
unity and integrity of the nation. Accordingly, we need sedition laws for
such people for inciting their fellow citizens against their motherland.
 Recently in 2016, we have seen cases where one single man was
successful in gathering a crowd of hundreds just by abusing the nation and
calling for its breakdown. This man named Kanhaiya was standing on a
bench in the universitys campus and was shouting BHARAT TERE TUKDE
HONGE, (INDIA WILL BE IN PIECES) and many such anti-national slogans
which were attracting the people of his mentality to his side.
Such incidents make us more willing to think that sedition law is needed
even in the Independent India.

Statistics proving that we still need Sedition Law

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) published the sedition data for the first
time in 2014 under Offences against the state category.
According to NCRB, 47 sedition cases were reported across nine states in 2014.
Bihar had the highest number of cases at 28 followed by 18 in Jharkhand and 4
each in Odisha and Kerala.
So, what would have been the situation if there was no sedition law?
Hence, it is justified to have the sedition law in the Republic of India.
 Why India does not need a Sedition
Law?
The law of sedition as present in independent India can be strongly
questioned for 3 reasons:
Colonial law: The law of sedition was framed by the Britishers to suppress the rebellious
Indians who were engaged in activities which were against the decorum of the colonial
rule and is hence out of place in a democratic republic where the sovereignty rests with
the citizens.
Sedition law: Paradise for central and state government: The law of sedition is more likely
to be a law for which the political parties crave for their own benefits. The ruling party
misuses the power against anyone questioning their policies and criticizing the functioning
of government. It is said so because despite the highest judiciary of independent India has
criticized the law; it has not yet been amended or repealed.
The existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are sufficient to address all threats to
violence and public order.
In 1951, the then PM of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had identified
offence of sedition being fundamentally unconstitutional and further said
that now as far as I am concerned [Section 124-A] 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.
 Law Of Sedition Vs Freedom Of Speech

Every case of sedition has a common

defense that the action was done in
pursuance of Article 19(1)(a). i.e. It was
his freedom of speech under which he
said those statements.
But what people are not aware of is
Article 19(2) which states that a speech
or an act should not be something which
can invoke or incite others against the
state. If something is capable of causing
unrest in the nation, it cant be defended
by using Article 19(1)(a).
Such an act which incites others to
destroy the unity and integrity of the
nation will be termed as sedition and not
free speech.
 Conclusion

The law of sedition was given to us by the colonial government in terms of

Section 124A on which we are still relying. Before independence sedition
was a negative law for us as the people who were fighting for us were put
behind the bars but after independence it has proved to be a positive law
as the people going against and invoking others to go against the nation
can be punished, which is required for the unity and integrity of the nation.
If democracy has to survive, then there should be some restrictions on the
people talking against the country.
But There is an urgent need to narrow down the interpretation of the
section 124A of IPC and prevent its indiscriminate use in the frivolous
arbitrary manner as the instance of misuse of section 124A has a chilling
effect on freedom of speech and expression.
The line between freedom of speech & expression and sedition is very thin.
And one should understand that he is free to express his views and
thoughts but he should not harm the sentiments and integrity of the nation.
 Suggestions

The freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right and also a

basic human right. It gives an opportunity to an individual to express
himself, dissent, self-improvement and free flow of information both
imparting and receiving. The restriction on it have to be constitutionally
valid and reasonable not arbitrary.
It is hereby recommended to
To review and amend Section 124A of IPC, 1860.
Make Speech related offenses bailable.
Make speech related offenses non-cognizable.
There should be action against malicious complaints.
There should be a committee which ensures that the law is not
misused.
Thank You