8/16/2019 Do We Really Need a Sedition Law
1/2
3/18/2016 Do We Really Need a Sedition Law? | The Wire
http://thewire.in/2016/02/15/do-we-really-need-a-sedition-law-21633/
In the light of the events at Jawaharlal Nehru University,
section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code – the notorious section that punishes people for sedition –
is in the news again. It is
about time we considered repealing this provision of law. I have
not voiced a very radical
suggestion. The person after whom the university at the centre
of the controversy is named
had the following thoughts on this piece of legislation:
“Now so far as I am concerned, that particular Section (section
124A of the 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. 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 a variety of ways and
apart from the logic of the
situation, our urges are against it.’
Nehru made this statement in Parliament in 1951, and yet, here
we are, in 2016, saddled with
the same rule.
The most interesting aspect of section 124A is its durability.
The text is, for all practical
purposes, the same text that was used by the British to put
Gandhi behind bars. The person
with respect to whom it was beyond imagination to suggest
an incitement to violence or
public disorder was convicted under this section for precisely
those reasons. Our constitutionmakers and our legislators, by
keeping this section alive in our political lives, have done us
a
great disservice. I would include Nehru in this group, who
despite the lofty sentiments
expressed above, let the status quo continue during his
time.
What’s even more galling is that the United Kingdom, the
most enthusiastic user of sedition
laws during colonial times, repealed its sedition laws in 2009.
The British parliamentary
debates on repealing the law referenced the deleterious effect
of such laws on political
freedom in colonial India and pointed out in particular the case
of Bal Gangadhar Tilak , who
was convicted for sedition in 1908. The British are
inspired by our history while we ignore it.
The British repealed their sedition laws because they had become
obsolete; the
government rarely used the heavy arm of the criminal law against
trenchant critics of the
state. In India, the sedition law has been used frequently not
only against serious threats to
the security of the state but also against lecturers,
journalists, human rights activists and
cartoonists. There is no danger yet in India of the obsolescence
of sedition laws. The
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/how-the-british-abolished-their-sedition-laws-kpumhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90709-0013.htmhttp://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/how-the-british-abolished-their-sedition-laws-kpum
8/16/2019 Do We Really Need a Sedition Law
2/2
3/18/2016 Do We Really Need a Sedition Law? | The Wire
http://thewire.in/2016/02/15/do-we-really-need-a-sedition-law-21633/
British parliamentarians were also concerned about improving the
standing of their country
in the global arena; the British felt that they would be in
better position to lecture other
countries on their authoritarian regimes if they first put their
own house in order. Perhaps
our parliamentarians can be motivated by similar feelings.
One course of action which is futile is to insist on a strict
interpretation of section 124A. The
Supreme Court has indeed interpreted this section to ensure that
it applies only to actions
that have a direct and unambiguous connection to violence or
public disorder. Politicians
with power, police authorities and lower courts have a
tendency to ignore these niceties in
applying such laws. That is why it would be better if we do away
wholesale with the current
legislative provisions on sedition.
Democracies must be confident enough in their powers to
withstand criticism. India must
instead look to see if we can have more targeted and narrow
legal approaches towards
activities designed to encourage terrorism. We are then likely
to notice that such targeted
approaches are either already present in our laws or can be
easily accommodated within our
legal system. Clinging to an all encompassing vaguely worded
sedition law will do more harm
than good to our democracy.
Powerful politicians in the ruling party are riled that students
at one of the best educational
institutions in India are protesting against Afzal Guru’s
conviction. Afzal Guru was tried andconvicted after a trial and his
conviction was confirmed by the highest court of the land.
However, many scholars and activists have raised important
questions about his guilt and
while the Supreme Court’s determination is final, it is
not infallible. Even assuming the fact
that the protestors were utterly misguided, invoking the law of
sedition is certainly
inappropriate at a university, other than in exceptional
circumstances. The protestors are
students after all. They are at an age where they have a right
to be wrong. They are in a place
where being ridiculous is as important as being sublime.
If the students have been motivated
by politics and politicians to make a spectacle of
themselves, so be it. Arresting young peoplefor their immaturity
is, to paraphrase the London Times, breaking a butterfly on a
wheel.
Nigam Nuggehalli is Associate Professor, Azim Premji
University, Bangalore
http://thewire.in/2016/02/14/sedition-and-the-status-of-subversive-speech-in-india-21547/
