Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance said by the Honorable Supreme Court. Section 124A (Criminalises sedition) of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
Background of the interim order of the Supreme Court that Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance
• This interim order was passed by the Court while considering a batch of writ petitions filed by Army veteran Major-General SG Vombatkere (Retired) and the Editors Guild of India, Former Union Minister Arun Shourie, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, etc. against the said provision.
Sedition- (What is Sedition Law to which Supre Court said that Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance)
• In simple terms – it means to encourage people to oppose the government or authority. • When a person promotes hatred toward the government which results in people creating public disorder or violence is sedition. The act which promotes disaffection toward the government, the act is referred to as be seditious Act.
Section 124A in The Indian Penal Code
124A. Sedition.-Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite 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.
Explanation 1.-The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do n constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Origins of the Section 124A of the IPC
• Thomas Macaulay, who drafted the Indian Penal Code, had included the law on sedition as Section 113, But it was not added in the code enacted in 1860 for reasons unknown.
• In 1890, sedition was included as an offence under section 124A IPC through the Special Act XVII. Section 124A of IPC was milder than that of sedition in English Law. The seditious feeling was penalized in English Law. In 1955- The punishment prescribed originally- transportation “beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life”, was replaced by life imprisonment.
• was extensively used to curb political dissent during the Independence movement. Several pre-independence cases involving Section 124A of the IPC are against celebrated freedom fighters, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat, Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad, and Mahatma Gandhi.
• It is during this time that the most notable trial on sedition- Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak – took place in 1898. For publishing an article in the newspaper about the Maratha warrior Shivaji, Tilak was accused of sedition.
Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance – Supreme Court
Constitution Assembly Debates-
There was a proposal to keep sedition as a restriction on Freedom of speech in the Constitution. • But this proposal was opposed by the Constitution Assembly as it reminded of the British Rule which should not be present in Independent India.
Shri K M Munshi said that sedition is an offence because government and law must be respected and obeyed, to avoid chaos and lawlessness. Public disorder or the willingness to create public disorder is the soul of the offence.
Legal challenges to the sedition law-
1950- Romesh Thapar v State of Madras, SC held “criticism of the government exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it, is not to be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the press, unless it is such as to undermine the security of or tend to overthrow the state.”
1951- Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, and
1959- Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh declared that Section 124A of the IPC was primarily a tool for colonial masters to quell discontent in the country and declared the provision unconstitutional.
The Kedar Nath ruling on sedition
• A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the earlier rulings of Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 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 incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labeled sedition. • the Court also distinguished between ‘The Government established by law’ and ‘the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration’.
• The ruling restricțed sedition only insofar as seditious speech tended to incite “public disorder”- a phrase Section 124A itself does not contain but was read into it by the court.
• The court also issued seven “guidelines”, underlining when critical speech cannot be qualified as sedition.
• In its guidelines on using the new, restrictive definition of sedition law, the court said not all speech with “disaffection”, “hatred,” or “contempt” against the state, but only speech that is likely to incite “public disorder” would qualify as sedition.
• Following the Kedar Nath verdict, “public disorder” has been considered a necessary ingredient for the commission of sedition. The court has held that mere sloganeering unaccompanied by any threat to public order would not qualify as sedition.
• This ruling in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), reiterated that the real intent of the speech must be taken into account before labeling it seditious.
• the Court held that criticism through raising slogans once or twice by individuals can not excite or attempt to excite the hatred or disaffection towards the government.
• In Raghubir Singh vs State Of Bihar, 1986 and Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), – the court also held that a person can be convicted for sedition even if she is not the author of the seditious speech but has merely circulated it In 2016, in Arun Jaitley v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court held that criticism of the judiciary or a court ruling would not amount to sedition.
• V. A. Pugalenthi v. State, the Madras High Court held that reaching out to the public to gain support against the Central and State Governments on the issue of NEET examination is not sedition as every citizen of the country has the fundamental right to register protest peacefully without violence and public nuisance.
• In Vinod Dua v Union of India 2021, the Supreme Court quashed Sedition FIRS against the journalist for criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis and cautioned against unlawful application of the provision.
Important Points from this Interim Order. (Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance)
• In SG Vombatkere vs Union of India–
• the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked the Central government and States to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
• A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Him Kohli directed that Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government’s exercise of reviewing Section 124A is complete.
• The Supreme Court Wednesday directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A, which deals with the offence of sedition, be kept in abeyance till the central government completes the promised exercise to reconsider and re-examine the provision.
• The court also said it is of the view that till the re-examination of Section 124A is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue usage of the provision by various governments.
• If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A, affected parties are at liberty to approach concerned courts for relief.
• The Court also suggested that the Centre issue directions to States to not register sedition cases till the review of Section 124A is complete and sought its response on the same.
• those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. These directions will be in force until further orders.
Talking about the needs of the action (action of the interim order on Section 124A IPC -Keep Sedition Law In Abeyance)
• “The court is cognizant of the duty of the State on one hand and citizens’ civil liberties on the other. There is a requirement for the balance of consideration. The case of the petitioner is that this provision of law dated back to 1870 and is being misused. The Attorney General had also given instances of glaring misuse like cases registered for the recital of Hanuman Chalisa”. Therefore there is a need for that interim order on Section 124A IPC- keep Sedition Law in Abeyance.
