Skip to main content

Law of Sedition

                                         The Law of Sedition

Sedition is defined under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Article 19 clause 2 of the Indian Constitution talks about the exceptions for freedom of speech and expression given to a person. It authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of public order.” However, this law has been misused at its best for personal and political motives. There are growing instances to show that this law has been weaponised as a handy tool against political rivals, to suppress dissent and free speech. To know more about this law, we must know how it was made.

HISTORY OF SEDITION

The revolt of 1857 gave rise to the codification of a criminal code made by Lord Macaulay for India that is the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The law of sedition was made by the British to suppress dissents and voices of the Freedom Fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak that opposed the British government’s policies. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first person to be convicted of sedition in the colonial rule. 

                  After Independence, the constitution framers had devoted considerable time to weigh in on various aspects of this colonial law. One of the most vehement critics of the sedition law was K M Mushi who argued that such a draconian law is a threat to democracy in India. He argued that, “as a matter of fact the essence of democracy is criticism of Government.” It was due to his efforts and the persistence of the Sikh leader Bhupinder Singh Mann that the word sedition was omitted from the Constitution.

               However, this law was again imposed by the very controversial 1st amendment that was passed by the government headed by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. His government not only reimposed the sedition law through the first amendment in 1951 but also strengthened it by adding two expressions — “friendly relations with foreign state” and “public order” — as grounds for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on free speech.

PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW OF SEDITION

This law has been a threat to the Indian Democracy.  The data provided by National Crime Records Bureau indicates that sedition cases have risen from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019, a massive 163 percent jump. Legally speaking, one of the main problems with the sedition law is that it is poorly defined. The terms “bring into hatred or contempt” or “attempt to excite disaffection” can be interpreted in many ways and this empowers the police and government to harass innocent citizens who are across the fence from them.

             In a landmark judgment of Kedarnath Singh V. State of Bihar, 1962, the constitutionality of the sedition law was challenged in the Supreme Court. Kedarnath Singh, member of a Communist Party, Bihar used ‘dogs’ for CID, ‘Goondas’ for Congress, he went on saying that he believes in revolution, which will come and in the flames of which Congress Leaders, zamindars and Capitalists will be reduced to ashes. However, there was no violence provoked by his statements but still a case of sedition was filed. Then Kedarnath Singh filed case saying it is ultra vires (beyond powers). Court held that it is intra vires (within powers) and considered it to be reasonable restriction. 

            In a recent judgment of Shreya Singhal V. Union of India, 2015, Shreya Shingal, inter alia was charged for Sedition for posting offensive comments against the government. The court in this case distinguished between ‘advocacy’, ‘discussions’, ‘incitement’.  It was also held that freedom of speech can be curtailed in only extreme circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

The law has been often used as a tool to stop the critics against the government. Freedom of speech and expression is the hallmark of a democracy that is being compromised due to the sedition law. A democracy requires citizens to actively participate in debates and express their constructive criticisms of government policies. However, the sedition laws have empowered the executive branch of the government to use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power. Yet, what is more concerning is once arrested under the sedition law; it is extremely difficult to get bails as the trial process can be stretched for long. This leads to harassment of innocent people and induces a fear in others to speak against the government. The law of sedition should be amended to make safer laws to protect the innocent ones. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more