Sedition (Section 124A Ipc)

SEDITION (SECTION 124A
IPC)
Nehru on Sedition
• While introducing the First Amendment to the Constitution in Parliament in 1951, Jawaharlal
Nehru had famously said, “Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section (124A IPC) is
highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and
historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of
it the better.”
• However, the often-quoted statement is only the first part of what he had said. Here is the
second part of what he said on sedition: “We might deal with that matter in other ways, in
more limited ways, as every other country does but that particular thing, as it is, should have
no place, because all of us have had enough experience of it in variety of ways and apart from
the logic of the situation, our urges are against it.”
• Nehru dithered on the issue and his government went ahead with the First Amendment that
strengthened Article 19(2) of the Constitution by adding two expressions — “friendly relations
with foreign state” and “public order” – as grounds for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on
free speech.
Historical Background
• The result: Even 71 years of Independence, India continues to struggle to get rid of
sedition that was widely used to crush freedom struggle. A ‘Consultation Paper on
Sedition’ released by the Law Commission of India late last month has only highlighted
the dilemma of a democratic polity where the quality of relationship between the
state and society is often determined by the degree of violence unleashed by non-
state actors and the use of force by the state to counter it.
• Sedition was not there in the original IPC drafted by Lord Macaulay that came into
force in 1862 and was added in 1870. Its ambit was expanded in 1898.
• Section 124A says a person commits the crime of sedition if he/she brings or attempts
to bring in hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards,
the government established by law in India. It can be by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise. It prescribes the
maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Important Cases
• Section 124A clarifies that criticism of public measures or comments on government action,
however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
• Interestingly, the Punjab High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) had declared
Section 124A IPC unconstitutional.
• In 1962, it was on the basis of “public order” in Article 19(2) that SC in Kedarnath Singh’s case
upheld the validity of Section 124A. But it restricted its scope.
• A five-judge constitution bench said though the section imposed restrictions on freedom of
speech and expression, it struck the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and
the interest of “public order”.
• The SC, however, restricted the scope. “It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which
have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and
order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order,” it said.
Balwant Singh’s Case (1995)
• In Balwant Singh’s case in 1995, the SC acquitted two men accused of
shouting anti-India slogans on the day Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
was killed.
• The court said the chanting of a slogan only a couple of times – which
neither evoked any response nor any reaction from the public –
couldn’t attract the sedition law.
Misuse of Sedition Law
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 35 persons were
arrested on sedition charges in 2016 in the country. The number may not
be too high. But there are legitimate concerns as often activists are at the
receiving end of sedition law.
• Many countries, including the UK and Australia, have abolished sedition.
Given the challenges it faces on the internal security front, the state needs
a legal tool to protect its sovereignty. But in a democratic society, free
speech is equally important.
• Sedition law can be repealed as there are many other penal provisions to
deal with such acts. Its scope can be restricted and punishment can be
rationalised. Also, there can be safeguards installed to check its misuse.
Need for Balance
• The state’s need to protect its sovereignty and maintain public order must be
balanced with an individual’s freedom of expression.
• Common Cause, an NGO, has approached the SC against the misuse of
sedition law. It has demanded that before any FIR is filed, the police chief of
the state should certify that the alleged seditious act either led to incitement
of violence or had the tendency or the intention to create public disorder.
• Political thinker Thomas Paine once said, “Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” This statement
sums up the dilemma of a democratic society.

Sedition (Section 124A Ipc)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sedition (Section 124A Ipc)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sedition (Section 124A Ipc)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEDITION (SECTION 124A

You might also like