Supreme Court rejected a plea urging it to re-examine the constitutional validity of Section 124A of IPC, which deals with sedition.
Arguments in favour of Sedition
- It has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements: Maoist insurgency and rebel groups who virtually run a parallel administration.
- It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow it with violence and illegal means. Continued existence of the government is essential for political stability.
- If contempt of court invites penal action, the same logic dictates that contempt of government should also attract punishment.
Arguments against Sedition
- Colonial Era law
- Right to Freedom of expression: Use of Section 124A by the government might go beyond the reasonable restrictions
- Democratic foundation: Dissent and criticism of the government are essential ingredients of robust public debate in a vibrant democracy and therefore, should not be constructed as sedition.
- Lower Conviction Rate: National Crime Records Bureau, sedition cases rose from 47 to 70 between 2014- 2018 but not more than 1-2 cases resulted in conviction.
- Vague provision of sedition laws: terms used under Section 124A like 'disaffection' are vague and subject to different interpretation to the whims and fancies of the investigating officers.
- Other legal measure for offences against the state: Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (1967), penalize "disrupting the public order" or "overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means".
- Perception of law: Globally, sedition is increasingly viewed as a draconian law and was revoked in the United Kingdom in 2010.
August 2018 Law commission Paper recommended to rethink sedition law.
- Inconsistent with international convention: In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Way Forward
- Lessen the harmful impact of using arrest and custody
- Non-cognisable offence
- Burden of proof: on those who claim that their sentiments are hurt rather than accept them at face value.
- Prevent Malicious complaints: courts begin to take action against those who bring malicious complaints against speech acts.
- Education law enforcement agencies: as to where the section must be imposed and where not
Therefore, as suggested by the Law commission of India, invoking 124A should be restricted only to criminalize acts committed with the intention to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Government with explicit violence and illegal means.