V.Kumaresan
The British rule in India had brought many codifications and one of them Indian Penal Code (IPC). IPC, became the uniform criminal code of the land for which the authorship of Lord Macaulay’s was significant. IPC was referred while deciding criminal case prior to 1857. When India came under the direct rule of the Queen Victoria from East India company, the IPC became the abiding criminal code.
The reforms and improvements in the social, and political scene brought by them, were with the ulterior motive of ruling the Indian subjects to suppress all sorts of voices either peaceful or weaponised against the British rule. To suppress such voices certain laws were enacted based on the criminal code. One among them was ‘sedition law’ speaks about Section 124A of IPC the criminality of sedition. A formal exclusive law of sedition was enacted by the British colonial government in 1870.
Mahatma Gandhi, who fought against the British rule was arrested under section 124A of IPC and his actions were charged on Sedition in 1922. The law of sedition that was instrumental for the charge against the Father of the Nation still continues in independent India. When many laws were changed after independence, the sedition law still continues as remnant of the British rule.
The law of sedition has outlived the purpose for which it was brought by the then colonial rulers. The necessity of sustaining this law of sedition has been debated and discussed many times after independence. Again the debate and discussion assume importance in public based on the recent judgments by the Supreme Court of India in Vinod Dua’s case (2021) and observations on the writ petition filed by the TV artist / film maker of Lakshadweep Union Territory, Aisha Sultana which is subjudice due to its final disposal by the High Court of Kerala. The sedition charge has been levelled against her on the comment made by her in TV debate on the policy changes sought to be brought about by the Administrator of Lakshadweep.
Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution confers the fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. But Article 19(2) says any existing law shall not be affected or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right (as per Article 19(1)(a)). The Constituent Assembly debated and did not include ‘sedition’ as reasonable restriction.
During the British rule, the committee of privy council (the judicial body that discharged the responsibility of the Supreme Court) consistently held that incitement to violence or rebellion was not a necessary part of sedition under Section 124A. A mere comment, which the (British) authorities thought, had the potential to cause disaffection towards the government is seditious. Even attempts to cause disaffection would attract the provision. It was meant during the colonial rule that rising rebellion, bringing disorder or inciting violence are not the necessary ingredients to level charge under sedition.
As a precautionary measure to suppress voices against the British rule the sedition charges were levelled practice even such voices are devoid of the cited ingredients of sedition. But in independent India there is no need to suppress the voices since the British rule is no more. Every citizen is ensured of the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. There is no reasonable restriction of that right, since sedition is not cited as reasonable restrictions.
The Supreme Court in Vinod Dua’s case has pronounced that unless speeches or writings tend to cause violence or disorder there is no sedition.
The High Court of Kerala while granting anticipatory bail to the Lakshadweep film maker, observed that neither Section 124A which penalizes seditious speech or writing (expression) nor Section 153B which seeks to punish imputations, against national integration is attracted. Further the Court has rightly pointed out, that there is nothing in the use of the term (bioweapon), by the writ petitioner that tended to create disaffection against the government or incite the people against it.
“Mere speech and writings cannot be the ground to level the charges of sedition” is the interpretation of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India and the interim observation of the High Court of Kerala. There cannot be any reasonable restriction on the ground of sedition to the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. There shall not arise any violence, disorder, disaffection among the citizenry or tend to arise owing to such speech and writings. There was no fundamental right for the subjects during the British colonial rule. The sedition law was required to sustain the British rule for which mere verbal speech or expression was sufficient for the offence of sedition. After independence every citizen of our country is constitutionally guaranteed with the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression. Unless such speech and expression incites violence or disorder etc, the Fundamental Right sustains. The purpose of sedition law at present is different from the colonial period. Freedom of speech and expression is ensured at present. Why not the sedition law of the colonial rule which is against the constitutional provisions (unconstitutional) be modified by the present rulers of our country?
