Sedition in India

Recent news reveals that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has pointed out that the British colonial law of sedition was historically employed to silence Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. 

This observation surfaced during a Supreme Court (SC) hearing, where Major General (retired) SG Vombatkere filed a petition challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sedition. The government has requested additional time to submit its response to the petitions questioning the constitutionality of Section 124A, which pertains to sedition.

Understanding Sedition

The sedition law, found in Section 124A of the IPC, was introduced by the British in 1870 to suppress dissent against colonial rule. Initially, the IPC enacted in 1860 did not include this law, and it was later drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay. In 1870, Sir James Stephen introduced an amendment inserting Section 124A to address such offences more specifically.

Section 124A of the IPC defines sedition as follows: “Whoever, through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or otherwise, attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites 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.”

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, this law was mainly used to suppress the writings and speeches of prominent Indian nationalists and freedom fighters. Numerous historical figures, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, faced trials under this law. For instance, in 1922, Gandhi was arrested on charges of sedition for participating in protests against the colonial government, leading to a two-year prison sentence.

Punishment for Sedition

Sedition is a non-bailable offence. The punishment under Section 124A of the IPC varies, ranging from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, with the possibility of adding a fine. Convicted individuals are disqualified from holding a government job and must surrender their passports. They are required to appear in court as needed.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling on Sedition

A recent ruling by a three-judge Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has raised concerns about the indiscriminate use of the sedition law against critics, journalists, social media users, activists, and citizens expressing grievances during the Covid-19 pandemic. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A, and 505 of the IPC, particularly regarding the right of electronic and print media to communicate news and information, even if critical of the government.

Section 66A of the IT Act

Additionally, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was deemed unconstitutional in 2015, was seen as limiting free speech and expression similar to the sedition law. This section penalised individuals for sending offensive or false information using electronic devices, including social media. The court struck down Section 66A, citing a violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a growing call for the judiciary to use its supervisory powers to sensitise the magistracy and police about the constitutional provisions safeguarding free speech. It is suggested that the definition of sedition should be narrowed down to issues specifically related to India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Civil society must play an active role in raising awareness about the arbitrary use of the sedition law.