• It is a non-bailable offence.

Punishment Supreme Court judgement on sedition law

ranges from imprisonment up to 3 years to a • The constitutionality of sedition was challenged in the
life term, to which fine may be added. Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Vs State of Bihar (1962).
• A person charged under this law is barred from • The Court upheld the law on the basis that this power
a government job. They have to live without was required by the state to protect itself.
their passport and must produce themselves in o However, it had added a vital caveat that "a person
the court at all times as and when required. could be prosecuted for sedition only if his acts
caused incitement to violence or intention or
Arguments in favour of Sedition tendency to create public disorder or cause
disturbance of public peace".
• It has its utility in combating anti-national,
• In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), Supreme
secessionist and terrorist elements.
Court had clarified that merely shouting slogans does not
o Many districts in different states face amount to sedition.
Maoist insurgency and rebel groups who Viewpoint of Law Commission of India on Sedition
virtually run a parallel administration. • In its 39th Report (1968), the Law Commission had
These groups openly advocate overthrow rejected the idea of repealing the section.
of the state government. • In its 42nd Report (1971), the panel wanted the scope of
• It protects the elected government from the section to be expanded to cover the Constitution, the
attempts to overthrow it with violence and legislature and the judiciary, in addition to the
illegal means. Continued existence of the government established by law.
government is essential for political stability. • In 2018, the Law Commission of India published a
consultation paper recommending that it is time to re-
• If contempt of court invites penal action, the
think or repeal the Section 124A of the Indian Penal
same logic dictates that contempt of Code that deals with sedition.
government should also attract punishment. • In the recent consultation paper on the sedition, the Law
Arguments against Sedition Commission has suggested invoking 124A to only
criminalize acts committed with the intention to disrupt
• Colonial Era law: It is a colonial relic and a public order or to overthrow the Government with
preventive provision that should only be read violence and illegal means.
as an emergency measure.
• Right to Freedom of expression: Use of Section 124A by the government might go beyond the reasonable
restrictions provided under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as per Article 19 of the
Constitution.
• 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. The sedition law is being
misused as a tool to persecute political dissent.
• Lower Conviction Rate: Though police are charging more people with sedition, few cases actually result in a
conviction.
o As per National Crime Records Bureau, sedition cases rose from 47 to 70 between 2014- 2018 but not
more than 1-2 cases resulted in conviction. This shows disutility of sedition law.
o Compared to other offences, sedition remains a rare crime (it accounts for less than 0.01% of all IPC
crimes).
• Vague provision of sedition laws: The 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), have provisions that penalize "disrupting the public order" or "overthrowing the government with
violence and illegal means". These are sufficient for protecting the national integrity.
o Similarly, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is also there for offences against the state.
• Perception of law: Globally, sedition is increasingly viewed as a draconian law and was revoked in the United
Kingdom in 2010. In Australia, following the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission
(ALRC) the term sedition was removed.
o Even in India, in August 2018, the Law Commission published a consultation paper recommending that it
is time to re-think or repeal the Section 124A.
• Inconsistent with international convention: In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of
expression. However, misuse of sedition and arbitrary slapping of charges are inconsistent with India's
international commitments.
8 www.visionias.in ©Vision IAS