Sedition law and Supreme Court’s fresh directive

The Supreme Court recently directed the Centre and states to keep in abeyance all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), till the central government completes the promised exercise to reconsider and re-examine the provision.

About the Sedition Law

• The sedition law is enshrined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Thomas Macaulay, who drafted the Indian Penal Code, had included the law on sedition; it was not added in the code enacted in 1860. 
• Later in 1890, sedition was included as an offence under section 124A IPC through the Special Act XVII.
• The punishment prescribed then, transportation “beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life”, was amended to life imprisonment in 1955.
• According to the section 124A, the charges could be put on whomever, 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.
• He/She shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added; or, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”
• The provision also contains three explanations:

1. The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity;
2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section;
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.

Legal challenges to IPC Section 124A

• As early as 1950, the Supreme Court in Romesh Thapar v State of Madras held that “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.
• Subsequently, two high courts — the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951), and the Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) — 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.
• However, in 1962, the issue came up before the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar.
• Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962):
• In Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court had made it clear that ‘strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means’ did not amount to sedition.
• This ruling puts the onus on law enforcers to come up with indisputable evidence of incitement to violence or disturbance of public peace.
• The court also issued seven “guidelines”, underlining when critical speech cannot be qualified as sedition.

What is the fresh challenge to sedition law?

• The Supreme Court has agreed to hear fresh challenges against the provision after a batch of petitions were filed.
• This would involve a seven-judge bench considering whether the Kedar Nath ruling was correctly decided.
• Although the government initially defended the provision arguing that “isolated incidents of misuse” do not necessitate removal of the provision itself, it has now told the court that it is mulling a fresh review of the colonial law.
• The court’s intervention is crucial because in case it strikes down the provision, it will have to overrule the KedarNath ruling and uphold the earlier rulings that were liberal on free speech.
• However, if the government decides to review the law, either by diluting the language or repealing it, it could still bring back the provision in a different form.