Why in news?

• The Law Commission of India has recommended that the provision be retained with procedural safeguards and enhanced jail term.

What’s in today’s article?

• Sedition law
• News Summary

Sedition law

• About
  • Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code penalises a crime against the state.
  • Sedition refers to any act or attempt to bring hatred or contempt towards the government established by law in India, or to incite disaffection or resistance against it.
• Punishment Under 124A
  • Sedition is a non-bailable offence. A person charged under this law can not apply for government job. They have to live without their passport.
  • Upon conviction, the person can be punished with either life imprisonment and a fine, or imprisonment for up to three years and a fine, or just a fine.
• SC on sedition law
  • In 1962, the Supreme Court in ‘Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar’ upheld the constitutional validity of IPC Section 124A.
    • However, the court attempted to restrict its scope for misuse.
    • The court held that unless accompanied by an incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labelled sedition.
  • In the Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995) case, SC held that merely shouting slogans, in this case Khalistan Zindabad, does not amount to sedition.

Criticisms of sedition law

• Restriction on Freedom of Expression
  • Law poses a threat to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
  • E.g., Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi,in 2012, was charged with sedition for his political cartoons that depicted corruption in the government.
• The law is vague and overly broad
  • Words like disaffection towards the government, visible representation are vague and provide enough scope for its misuse.
  • E.g., During the farmers protests in early 2021, climate activist Disha Ravi was arrested by Delhi Police in connection with a toolkit on the farmer protests
• Misuse and Selective Application
  • The law has been misused to silence critics and target political opponents.
  • E.g., In 2021, sedition FIR was filed against journalist Vinod Dua for a video in which he remarked against the Prime Minister on his handling of the COVID crisis. It was later quashed by the Apex Court.

News Summary: A stronger sedition law for India

• The 22^ndLaw Commission has urged that the sedition law needs to be retained but certain amendments should be made for greater clarity regarding its usage.
  • The commission was headed by former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi.

Recommendation of Law Commission

• Inclusion of Kedar Nath ruling's ratio in the sedition law provision
  • The words "with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder" should be added to the provision.
• Defines the tendency to incite violence
  • The report suggests defining the "tendency to incite violence" as a mere inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder.
  • This definition emphasizes that proof of actual violence or imminent threat to violence is not necessary.
• Recommended Enhancement of Sedition Imprisonment
  • Enhance imprisonment for sedition to address an existing oddity in the law.
  • Currently, Section 124A of the sedition law provides for a jail term of up to three years or life imprisonment.
    • The 42nd Law Commission report in 1971 highlighted the oddity of this provision.
    • It only allowed for either life imprisonment or a maximum of three years' imprisonment, without any middle ground.
    • Additionally, the minimum punishment is only a fine.
  • The Law Commission's report proposes enhancing the jail term to up to seven years or life imprisonment.
• To prevent misuse of the law
  • The report suggests the inclusion of a procedural safeguard to regulate the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) for sedition.
  • As per the recommendation, an FIR for sedition shall not be registered unless a police officer, specifically of the rank of Inspector or higher, conducts a preliminary inquiry.
  • It further proposes that based on the report submitted by the said police officer, the Central Government or the State Government, depending on the jurisdiction, grants permission for registering the FIR.

Reasons given to retain the law

• To safeguard the unity and integrity of India
  • The report cited threats to India’s internal security, including Maoist extremism, militancy etc. for retaining the law on sedition.
  • It justified criminalising sedition, saying it is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• Realities differ in every jurisdiction
  • The report also said that courts of competitive jurisdictions like the US, the UK, etc. had their own history, geography, population, diversity, laws, etc.
  • These are not compatible with Indian circumstances.
  • Also, some of these countries have actually merged their sedition law with counter-terror legislation.
• Existence of counter-terror legislations
  • The Law Commission simply states that the existence of anti-terror legislations does not by implication cover all elements of the offence envisaged under Section 124A of IPC.
  • In the absence of a provision like 124A of IPC, any expression that incites violence against the government, would invariably be tried under the special laws and counter terror legislation.
  • These laws, in turn, contain much more stringent provisions.
• Sedition being a colonial legacy
  • It is often said that the offence of sedition is a colonial legacy.
  • However, going by that virtue, the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy.
    • The police force and the idea of an all-India civil service are also temporal remnants of the British era.
    • Merely ascribing the term ‘colonial’ to a law or institution does not by itself, ascribe it to an idea of anachronism.