Sedition Law and the Ramya’s Case

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

Introduction

Every country, irrespective of the form of the government which it follows, has a duty to protect itself from the external as well as internal aggression. The state has an obligation to be ever vigilant and be armed with the power to punish those who, by their actions, raise an situation of mayhem in the nation.The law of sedition helps in doing the same. Sedition is an act which consists of the acts, spoken or written; actions; or writings intended or calculated in the circumstances of the time, to bring hared, disaffection, contempt, hatred or cause violence against the state; but, these laws put an obligation on the states too, to keep a check that these provisions are not used arbitrarily, which if happens would cause more harm than good, as freedom to speech and expression (within the limit of reasonable restrictions) is a right which every person should be allowed to enjoy.

Understanding Section 124A

The law of sedition, in India, is similar to law of treason in England. Lord Macaulay, when he was drafting the Penal Code for India in 1837, put it in Sec 113 of the draft, but due to some reasons it was not given the place when the code was enacted. The need for the provision, however was felt in 1870 when it was added and since then several minor changes have been done [K.I. Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, LexisNexis, 12th ed.], but the crux of meaning of Sedition as contained under Sec. 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) remained same andpresently it reads as,

“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 excites 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.”

To bring about a case in which a person may be held guilty under sedition, the following ingredients must be proved, firstly there must be some overt act, be it in any form i.e. words, signs or anything other; secondly it must bring hatred or contempt; thirdly must cause disaffection which means disloyalty or enmity; and fourthly it must be against the government established by law, which means ‘the Central Government’ and ‘the State Government’ as under Sec. 17 of the IPC, the government here is to be distinguished from the bureaucrat or the person carrying on the administration[KedarNath v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 995].The law has developed from being construed strictly to being construed liberally now.There were times (pre-independence) even when the expression of disapproval of the act of the government was also charged with sedition to the present day when it is held by the Apex court that a speech can be branded seditious only when it instigates imminent lawless action or violence [Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377].

The BAD

“The quality f a nation’s civilization, it is said can largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law.” [RampalPitwaRahidas v State of Maharashtra, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 73.]

Recent times, however have seen a widespread and arbitrary application of charges of sedition against individuals as well as organizations, which has rightly led to the people claiming that the said law is used to curb dissent and right to speech and expressions of the general masses. The case of Aseem Trivedi, where a cartoonist was charged with sedition on painting some cartoon related to Parliament, is not old; the Bombay High Court ultimately acquitted him. The Supreme Court as well as several High Courts have warned on the casual way the police invokes offence under Sedition, but this seems unstoppable in the present scenario. In 2014, in Jammu and Kashmir, a group of students was charged with sedition for supporting Pakistan cricket team, coming to more recent times in February 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, students from JNU were charged with sedition for raising “anti-India” slogans; in June 2016, Shridhar Venugopal president of Akhila Karnataka Police Mahasabha was charged with sedition for calling a state-wide protest by the police personnel to put forward their personal demands.Skipping others, the two more recent ones are Sedition cases filed against Amnesty International as in their meet for discussion on Kashmir issue “anti-national” slogans (azadi) slogans were raised and on Actress turned politician DivyaSpandana alias Ramya because of her statement in which she praised people of Pakistan and their hospitality.

Amnesty Case, falls on somewhat similar lines to that of JNU incident where an event was organised for a discussion on human rights issues in Kashmir, some azadi slogans were raised and A.B.V.P. complained that seditious slogans were raised.If some perspective is poured in, then this is not the first case and Kashmir is not the first state for which independence is asked, same has been done in relation to Khalistan, by Nagas (for free Nagaland) and by Mizos too. There was no call for imminent violence and as is settled by the Supreme Court in various occasions that mere raising of slogans in not seditious, it must be coupled with some resort to violence or imminent danger[Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1995SC 1785]. The raising of slogans cannot be termed as illegal, but at the same can be called illogical.

The case of DivyaS pandana goes a level above, the actor turned politician who made a remark praising people on the other side of the border for their hospitality, and thus rebutting the earlier statement,“going to Pakistan and going to hell are same” made by the Defense Minister ManhoharParrkiar. She faced a wide spread criticism for the same and a complaint case was filed against her by KatmaneVittal Gowda, a local lawyer. The lawyer has been asked by the court to prove that how the present case fulfills the essential elements of the Sec. 124A [India Today, Ramya sedition case: Court seeks justification under relevant sections, hearing adjourned to Oct 19]. It can be clearly argued that the elements of Sec 124A are not fulfilled in any manner, and though there may be a lack of cordial feeling for Pakistan among the masses the case does not fall within the ambit of sedition.

The NCRB data shows that there is a decline in the cases of Sedition registered in the past few years, but what needs to be there is a system of checks that such type of cases, where prima facie there is no element of crime present, and only cause harassment to the accused are not taken up at the first instance.

Aggrieved by the way things are happening, a petition is filed before the Supreme Court to challenge the of Sec. 124A by Common Cause, a NGO and S.P. Udayakumar, one of the prayers is to pass an order or direction making it compulsory for the concerned authority to produce a reasoned order from the director general of police (DGP) or the commissioner of police, as the case maybe, certifying that the ‘seditious act’ either led to the incitement of violence or had the tendency or the intention to create public disorder, before any FIR is filed or, any arrest is made on the charges of sedition against any individual[The Wire, Petition Challenges Sedition Law in Supreme Court].

Conclusion

Mahatma Gandhi once commented on Sec 124A saying that “Section 124-A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen” but at the same time it is a necessity to have in the Penal Code.What is required is to monitor how it is applied. It can be conclusively held that at present the provision on Sedition is invoked in a very arbitrary manner and there is a need to devise a mechanism so that both the provision can be kept in the statute book as well as be made sure that it does not arbitrarily hampers anyone’s rights. The provision of Sedition has been put up for judicial scrutiny many a time in front of various courts and it has been held constitutional by the Supreme Court in case of KedarNath v State of Bihar, the present petition filed may give finally a way in which both the provisions of Sedition and the Right to freedom of Speech and Expression can harmoniously exist.

The state has a duty to maintain the public order and peace, and for that it is necessary to control the activities which may disrupt the peace, which makes laws like Sedition a necessity.Even if they are considered evil by some, they are the evil we need.

Latest News

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -