India has taken a good first step towards removing sedition law

These are not empty words only for an affidavit. Under his leadership, nearly 1,500 old colonial-era laws have been scrapped. About 25,000 compliance rules which were creating hurdles, have been removed and many offences that were a hindrance to development have been decriminalised. There was also in the affidavit a profound statement of great intent: “Laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mindset have no place in today’s India.”

With this background, it was conveyed, that the Government of India has decided to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which deals with sedition. The history of the sedition law in India is in many ways unique. During the British Raj, it was part of the penal law from the very beginning. The British government in India not only framed the law, defining various offences, but also made sedition a very serious offence, punishable with imprisonment for life and a fine. The definition of sedition was a little vague, whereby any attempt to bring hatred or contempt or attempt to excite disaffection towards the government constituted sedition. Disaffection includes disloyalty and feeling of enmity. Sedition was designed to perpetuate the hold of the British on the people of India, and any attempt at disloyalty was enough for the offence.

Great leaders of the freedom movement became the targets of the law. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first person to be convicted of sedition in colonial India because the British government thought that his writings in his celebrated Marathi newspaper, Kesari, were causing disaffection against the British Raj. He was imprisoned for 18 months. Even Gandhiji, in 1922, was sentenced to six years for his article in Young India on the charge of “attempting to excite disaffection towards his majesty’s Government established by law in British India”. Many others were also prosecuted and convicted.

Significantly, during the making of the Constitution, December 1, 1948, K M Munshi moved an amendment in the Constituent Assembly proposing sedition be dropped “as constituting a restriction on right to freedom of speech and expression particularly in the context of the painful experience to punish Indians by the British authorities for even innocuous expressions and criticism of colonial government.” Article 19 (1)(a)(g) provides for various freedoms including freedom of speech and expression while clause 19 (2) to (6) enumerates provisions for constituting reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such rights.

It must be noted that in none of the said clauses is the offence of sedition mentioned as grounds for “reasonable restriction”. There are expressions like “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India”, and security of state public order but not sedition. Sedition simply means “deshdroh”. Yet, it has continued in the IPC. There have been judgments from various high courts in this regard but a constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in 1962 (Kedarnath Singh vs The State of Bihar) where it held that “unless accompanied by incitement or call for violence criticism of government cannot be labelled Sedition”.

There has been genuine criticism about why this colonial-era provision should be a part of our statute. The Congress party, which claims to be the inheritor of the freedom movement, never tried to scrap this law though it ruled India for nearly 60 years. Certain freedoms are fundamental under our constitutional scheme.

There have been cases of rampant abuse and the latest is a hilarious instance from a particular state where singing the Hanuman Chalisa amounted to sedition. Surely, there is a need for a review of the law. India, in the 75th year of its independence, is strong and stable enough to decide in a free, fair and objective manner whether the offence of sedition is needed or not, and if so under what form with strong guidelines to prevent its misuse, and clearly enunciate the circumstances in which it can be invoked. The PM has trusted the process by which so many old laws have been repealed, offences decriminalised and thousands of compliance burdens removed. All this was done in a peaceful manner with due consultation. This is the institutional strength of India. I am quite sure the same process will entail a relook at the whole issue of sedition to the satisfaction of all concerned where a healthy balance is maintained between respect for human rights and civil liberties and the compelling need to fight terrorism, and separatism and whose clear agenda is to break India.

I must conclude with a word of gratitude for the PM for demonstrating extraordinary leadership in a matter that has divided the country for the last few years. Let’s hope the inner strength of the country will help us arrive at a healthy conclusion. Equally, the Supreme Court has shown judicial statesmanship by agreeing with the government’s request to give time for the review and by passing appropriate interim protections in the meantime.

This column first appeared in the print edition on May 17, 2022, under the title ‘On sedition, a beginning’. The writer is a BJP MP and former Union Law Minister