The Law Of Sedition Is Unconstitutional

Context: An urgent review of the Kedar Nath judgment is necessary as ‘sedition’ violates the basic right of speech and expression.

About sedition law

• Section 124A, Indian Penal Code: Categorises four sources of seditious acts - spoken words, written words, signs or visible representations.
• Gist of the offence: Bringing or attempting to bring government into contempt or hatred, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards government.
  • ‘Disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, and,
  • One can comment on measures of government without bringing or attempting to bring it into contempt or hatred or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government.

Judicial verdicts on sedition law

• Kedar Nath case, 1962: Upheld constitutional validity of sedition law and read down the provision by holding that only writings or speeches which incite people to violence against the government will come within the mischief of sedition.
• Vinod Dua case, 2021: Supreme Court reaffirmed law of sedition laid down in Kedar Nath Singh verdict and directed governments to adhere to it.

Issues with the sedition law

• Ambiguities inframework of law: Whether an act is sedition or not is left to the subjective interpretation of authority; thus, the act of merely criticising policies of government can attract charges of sedition.
  • E.g. If a policeman thinks (personal opinion) that a cartoon has a pernicious tendency to create public disorder, he can arrest cartoonist on the grounds of sedition.
• Ignore judicial directives: Especially the provision that sedition applies only when writing or speech led to violence or disorder. E.g. Charging sedition on activists from Lakshadweep.
• Contravene Fundamental Right: Against Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution.
  • Law does not get protection under Article 19(2)- As sedition is not a context for reasonable restrictions.
• Continuing colonial intent: Law was enacted by the British colonial government in 1870 with the sole object of suppressing all voices of Indians critical of the government.
  • Pre-independence misuses: Bangobasi case in 1891, Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case in 1897 and 1908 and Mahatma Gandhi’s case in 1922.
  • Supreme Court’s attempt to soften sedition law and makes its application conditional on public disorder has whitewashed the draconian law as constitutional.
• Anti-democratic: People’s display of disaffection towards a government that has failed them is in line with their inalienable democratic right to change government they do not like.