Skip to main content

SEDITION LAW: A THREAT TO INDIA'S DEMOCRACY

 SEDITION LAW: A THREAT TO INDIA’S DEMOCRACY 

BY NUPUR GARG 

INTRODUCTION 

In India democracy means that all the people have the power to freely express their satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the laws created by the government. Few laws and rules which were solely made for the purpose to serve the British administration were still adopted by the sovereign government of India and till today even after more than seventy years of free India such colonial laws are being followed. One of the highly talked about law in today’s day and time is the relevance of the Sedition Law in independent India.

ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION 

Sedition as per Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) reads as, “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.” This law was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj, to prevent any offences against the state.

Sedition laws were enacted during 17th century in England with a view that people can only have a positive impression for the government as their negative view van harm the government functioning. Later on in 1870 it was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code. It has been seen that there are number of cases been reported against the person who had done an offence under the said law. This number had increased from 2014 but in spite of this the cases never reached to court and it was believed that executives were using the unambiguity of law for their advantage. This can be the reason why today government is not ready to accept the opposition or criticism which is known to be one of the features of the democracy.

In simple terms sedition means the use of any word or phrase which is seditious in nature or a false statement which can harm the reputation of a person or any act done orally or through written form in order to satisfy some seditious goal. This act is punishable with fine as well as punishment under the common law.

After independence the section 124A of IPC first time came up in the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras. In this case the apex court held that unless the freedom of speech and expression causes any harm to the security of the state any law imposing any kind of restriction on the same would be out of the scope of section 19(2) of the constitution.

DRAWBACK OF SEDITION LAW 

After the total analysis an observation by the National Crime Records Bureau it was told that after 2014 there have been a massive increase in the number of cases of sedition registered. However, despite the large number of cases registered the conversion of cases to conviction is very low this shows that cases have not reached to court which further indicates that the concerned authorities i.e., police and state authorities are using the sedition law inappropriately according to their convenience which results in fear among the citizen of nation also silencing any form of criticism against the government regime. 

Now we see that how sedition is a threat to Indian democracy. As we know that in a democratic country like India, we have the right of freedom of speech and expression as this right is important for healthy democracy. But if we see practically this is not an absolute right as freedom to speech under article 19(1) is always followed by article 19(2) which tells about the reasonable restrictions on the right to speech. Similarly, the law of sedition has a heavy impact on the free speech. AS this law must be used in rare cases but the government has exploited it in order to manipulate the public opinions. The restrictions imposed by sedition is very unreasonable as it prevents citizens to express their healthy criticism towards government decisions and policies. The government has utilized the sedition statute to silence protesting voices in order to defend its own interests.

CONCLUSION 

To conclude, sedition laws and their growing misuse by governments of all stripes  are a matter of serious concern. Personal liberty and the right to free speech are hallmarks of liberal democracy and sedition laws and their gross misuse attack the very foundation of these liberties enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The need of the hour requires the judiciary to review this draconian law. Even if abolishing this law may not be feasible, toning it down and issuing strict guidelines to limit its indiscriminate use can definitely help India’s democratic standing apart from safeguarding freedom of expression in the country.
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