Sedition, offences against the state: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
Overview
The Indian Express, Feb 20, 2016
Written by Deepak Nayyar
It is instructive to remember the fate of the sedition charges pressed by two governments, run by two parties, in the past. Both had happy endings.
The dictionary meaning of sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the state. Its legal meaning is inciting violence towards insurrection of established order and lawful authority, including subversion of the Constitution. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which does not use the word sedition, defines it as any action, by words, signs or visible representation, which “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards a government established by law”. It is a draconian law from the colonial era making such an act punishable with imprisonment for life. Though its application is also not feasible in the turbulent politics of the Republic of India, which is a strong, vibrant and participative democracy, it still remains one of the used, if not most, provisions of the Indian Penal Code. What is more, it seeks to negate the very idea of freedom, inquiry, questions, dissent and debate constitute the essential foundations of learning that make for good citizens in a democracy.
Yet, it is not the first time that the sedition law has been used in independent India. And it will not be the last time. It is neither rare nor frequent. But it happens often enough when it serves a political purpose. Governments invoke the law and the opposition cries foul. The irony of double standards is striking. The same political parties when in government cite the national interest and when in opposition wax eloquent about rights or freedoms. In 1986, Krishna Raj, the then editor of the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), had been charged for sedition by Bombay Police. The reason cited in the charge was a signed article by a contributor in the EPW who had alleged atrocities on civilians in Amritsar, by the army, in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar.
In a meeting with Rajiv Gandhi for a brief 15 minutes, as a concerned citizen, I said that the EPW was an independent, credible voice on economy, polity and society in India and an important, indeed unique, institution in our vibrant democracy. I argued that charging its editor with sedition was totally inappropriate and unjustified. Instead, the government could consider legal action against the author, not the editor, under any other law of the land. He heard me out and asked just one question: “If I agree to what you are suggesting, the army will be unhappy but what will people think?” My answer was simple: “People will admire your sagacity and wisdom in preserving the essential values of democracy.” He smiled. And our meeting was over. The PM had spoken to the CM of Maharashtra communicating the PM’s decision to drop sedition charges against the editor of the EPW.
The second experience was in October 2001. Following 9/11, the United States started its bombing of Afghanistan. At a demonstration in Seelampur, five of our students were arrested for distributing leaflets and shouting slogans. To my dismay, I learnt that they were charged with sedition. I requested an appointment with the deputy PM, who was also the home minister. I met L.K. Advani and told him that five University of Delhi students had been arrested and charged with sedition. There were protests against the US bombing of Afghanistan everywhere in the world. Our students also had the same democratic right to protest. The charge of sedition was totally inappropriate and unjustified. If they had disturbed the peace, they could be charged for that. As vice chancellor, however, it was my duty to ensure that no injustice was done to my students. The DPM listened to me patiently for 15 minutes and said he would let me know. Advani said that he had considered the matter and decided that the sedition charges against the five students would be dropped.
There are some obvious conclusions. First, the sedition charges must be dropped. Second, the colonial law on sedition must be repealed. Third, governments and parties must stop playing politics in universities. Fourth, the time has come for universities to reclaim their freedom and space from intervening governments and intrusive politics: Autonomy is as autonomy does.
Fundamental rights and sedition
The Times of India, Feb 19 2016
Soli J Sorabjee
Sedition law should stay, but its interpretation must be specific and not wide-ranging as in British era
No fundamental right in our Constitution is absolute. Free dom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted on the grounds specified in Article 19(2). It is significant that during the debates in the Constituent Assembly the founding fathers, in view of their bitter experience of the application of the sedition law by the British colonial regime, deliberately omitted `sedition' as one of the permissible grounds of restriction under Article 19(2) on freedom of speech and expression. However sedition as a criminal offence remains in the IPC and provides for inter alia sentence of life imprisonment and fine upon conviction. Section 124A was challenged in the Supreme Court as violative of the fundamental rights of free speech guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Federal Court of (British) India presided over by the distinguished Chief Justice, Maurice Gwyer, ruled that sedition law is not to be invoked “to minister to the wounded vanity of government ... The acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency“.The Privy Council did not approve of the Federal Court judgment and placed a wide and literal interpretation of the section.
According to the Privy Council any speech or writing which evinced disloyalty or ill feelings towards the government could be regarded as sedition and persons guilty of such acts could be prosecuted and punished for committing the offence of sedition. Our Supreme Court in its landmark decision in 1962, in Kedarnath versus state of Bihar, dissented from the view of the Privy Council and preferred the view of the Federal Court.
According to the Supreme Court, mere criticism of the government or comments on the administration, however vigorous or pungent or even ill-informed, does not constitute sedition. The Supreme Court limited the application of Section 124A (sedition) to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.
Incitement to violence is the essential ingredient of the offence of sedition. That is our law, that is how Section 124A was interpreted and upheld as constitutional by a Constitution Bench. Therefore the question whether certain speech or acts constitute sedi tion are essentially questions of fact which have to be determined by a court of law keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath's case.
Thus shouting slogans like Pakistan zindabad, however deplorable, per se would not attract Section 124A. Criticism of judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the conviction of Afzal Guru on the ground that he did not have a fair trial, is untenable because in my opinion Afzal Guru had a fair trial at all stages of the proceedings.
Nonetheless criticism of the Supreme Court judgment, is again per se not sedition unless there is speech or acts which call for avenging the `injustice' done to Afzal Guru by commission of acts against the government or advocate its overthrow by violent means. If, and i repeat if, a person has said Hindustan murdabad, that the state is tyrannical and it is better to do away with it, necessary to overthrow it, that would constitute sedition.
But these facts have to be established in a court of law by following proper procedure. It is not for lawyers or political workers to prejudge the issue. An accused cannot be denied his or her fundamental right to fair trial by assaulting him or her or their supporters or their lawyers, as that would militate against the rule of law and also disrupt administration of justice by regular courts of the land.
These basic principles must be kept in mind in all cases. Mob rule and mob justice cannot be permitted however strongly one may dislike the accused and his alleged statements. If that happens the very basis of a civil society is undermined and there is no vibrant democracy prevalent in our country .
In my view Section 124A `Sedition' as interpreted by the Supreme Court is necessary . Its misuse is no ground for its deletion.
Sedition and the law (S.124-A IPC)
Criticism of government is not sedition: Bombay HC
The Times of India, Mar 18 2015
Swati Deshpande
`Trivedi toons lacked wit, but not seditious'
A citizen can say or write anything critical about the government, or its measures, as long it does not incite violence or is intended to dis rupt public peace and create disorder, the Bombay HC said while holding that cartoons by Aseem Trivedi in 2011 lacked wit but were not seditious as charged by the police. The HC also directed the police to “scrupulously implement new guidelines issued by the Maharashtra government that place checks on filing frivolous sedition cases.
“Cartoons or caricatures are visual representations, words or signs which are supposed to have an element of wit, humour or sarcasm. Having seen the seven cartoons in question, it is difficult to find wit, humour or sarcasm. The cartoons at a meeting on November 27, 2011, in Mumbai, as part of a movement by Anna Hazare against corruption in India, were full of anger and disgust against corruption in the political system and had no wit, humour or sarcasm, the HC said on Tuesday , holding that the sedition charge was not attracted against Trivedi.
“But for that reason, the freedom of speech and expression available to Trivedi to express indignation against corruption in the political system in strong terms or visual representations could not have been encroached upon when there is no allegation of incitement to violence or tendency or intention to create public disorder, the HC bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Jus tice Nitin Jamdar said.
Trivedi's arrest was for serious criminal life imprisonment attracting charge of sedition, among other offences. But the HC ordered his bail three days after his arrest on September 11 following a plea by a city lawyer, and then state advocategeneral Darius Khambata found the invocation excessive. The Bandra-Kurla Complex then dropped the sedition charge.
Maharasthra circular of 2015
The Times of India, Sep 05 2015
Maharashtra issues fresh norms on sedition, draws oppn's ire
People trying to bring change in government through legal means will not face sedition charge in Maharashtra, but those attempting to bring into “hatred or contempt, dissatisfaction and provoking violence“ against the central or state government will be slapped with sedition charges. These provisions are part of a fresh set of guidelines issued to police by the Maharashtra government with regard to invocation of the IPC Section (124-A) pertaining to sedition.
The circular containing these guidelines says sedition clause can be invoked against “whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, is critical of politicians, elected representatives belonging to the government“.
They were issued in compliance with an assurance given to the Bombay high court by state government while dropping sedition charge against cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, arrested in 2012 for drawing cartoons that allegedly insulted the national emblem and Parliament. The guidelines were issued on August 27 in accordance with assurance in the HC that the government would come out with a circular indicating limitations and parameters of 124-A of IPC, additional chief secretary (home) K P Bakshi said.
“Powers to invoke different sections of IPC are with the station officer. Government can issue guidelines, hence, we have done so to avoid confusion among different police stations,“ he said on Friday.
The circular drew flak from the opposition parties.Leader of opposition in legislative council Dhananjay Munde of NCP said the move indicated an “Emergency like” situation.
