Elaboration: Sedition Law | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

Sedition is an offence against the state, defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. It targets materials that incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government, with the potential to provoke violence or public disorder. However, criticism aimed at reforming government actions is not considered sedition. This section has faced criticism for being misused to suppress dissent and restrict freedom of speech. Recently, there have been discussions about decriminalizing sedition.

History of Sedition

Sedition was added to the Indian Penal Code in 1870 to suppress voices advocating for freedom and independence, targeting figures like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, and Jawaharlal Nehru.

• Original IPC (1860): Sedition was not included in the original Indian Penal Code.
• Amendment of 1870: Sedition was introduced to curb dissent against the British government.
• Use Against Freedom Fighters: Sedition was wielded against prominent leaders advocating for Indian independence.

Interpretation by Federal Court (1942): The Federal Court clarified that sedition constitutes an offence only when it leads to public disorder or violence, providing a more nuanced understanding of the law.

• Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v King Emperor (1942): The Federal Court ruled that sedition requires incitement to public disorder or violence.
• King Emperor v Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947): The Privy Council rejected the Federal Court's interpretation, stating that sedition does not necessitate incitement to public disorder or violence.
• Post-Independence Changes: After India gained independence, the Constituent Assembly considered removing sedition from the Constitution, influenced by K.M. Munshi's proposal.
• First Amendment (1951): The Constitution was amended to include "public order" as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2).
• Strengthening of Section 124A (1973): The Indira Gandhi government made sedition a cognisable offence, allowing arrests without a warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Sedition, as defined by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, refers to actions that bring or attempt to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government of India through words (written or spoken), signs, visual representations, or any other acts.

Key Points about Sedition

• Disaffection includes feelings of disloyalty and enmity, which refers to hostility or ill will between individuals.
• According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), sedition is applicable only when there is incitement or a call for violence. It should lead or be likely to lead to public disorder or violence.

Punishment for Sedition

• Punishment for sedition under Section 124A can include:
• Imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Imprisonment for life.
• Imprisonment for life with a fine.
• Imprisonment for up to 3 years with a fine.
• Only a fine.
• The judge presiding over the trial decides the quantum of punishment.

Constituents of Sedition

• There must be some form of communication such as words (written or spoken), signs, visual representations, or actions.
• The act should aim to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government.
• The targeted government must be one established by law in India.
• The actions must lead to or have the potential to lead to violence or public disorder.

Elements of Sedition

Intention

• The intention of the person accused is crucial in determining a sedition case. It is assessed by examining the individual's speeches, the context, and the overall tendency of their actions.
• The accused must have the desire to incite feelings of hatred,contempt, or disaffection towards the government, along with the intention to provoke violence or public disorder.
• It is essential that the person is aware that their actions will lead to such a reaction. In sedition cases, the intention behind the language used is punished, regardless of its effectiveness.
• The accused should have acted with the aforementioned desire and knowledge willingly.

Act

• The act involved in sedition refers to the act of speaking or writting words, making signs or visual representations, or any other similar action. Sedition can be committed through various forms of material.
• Examples of acts include:
• Letter
• Published article
• Videography
• Poster
• Speech, etc.
• It is important to note that some form of publication is necessary to establish a case of sedition. Other acts may involve the distribution, republication, or circulation of seditious material.

Intended Act Towards the Government

• It is crucial that the intended act is directed towards a government established by law in India. When the stability and continuity of this government are threatened, it poses a danger to the visible symbol of the state.
• The stability of the government is of utmost importance, and any threat to its stability and continuity constitutes an offence against the State, triggering the application of sedition laws.
• If the act is directed towards a private person,association,government company,political party,foreign government, or an officer of the state (including members of the Army, Navy, or Air Force), it would not fall under the offence of sedition.

Violence or Public Disorder

• The incitement of violence or public disorder is a necessary element of sedition. The alleged seditious act must be likely to cause or result in violence or public disorder.
• There must be a reasonable link(nexus) between the seditious material and the incitement of violence or public disorder. A mere speculation that violence or disorder could have been caused by the seditious material is insufficient for conviction.
• It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to establish the proximity of the link between the seditious material and the incitement of violence or public disorder.

Exceptions to Sedition

Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapproval of government measures aimed at their lawful alteration.

Explanation 3: Critique of government administrative actions, provided it doesn’t incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection.

According to the Kedarnath Singh judgment, comments under explanations 2 and 3 should not provoke public disorder or violence.

Explanation 2 of Section 124A

• Comment made disapproving a government measure.
• Intent to obtain change through lawful means.
• Must not lead to public disorder or violence.

For instance, criticizing the government’s financial policies with the aim of initiating peaceful dialogue for change falls under explanation 2 and does not constitute sedition.

Explanation 3 of Section 124A

Explanation 3 serves as a conditional exception. A disapproving comment on a government administrative action is considered sedition only if it incites hatred, contempt, or disaffection with the potential to cause public disorder or violence.

The protection under explanation 3 hinges on the following aspects:

• Disapproval of the government’s administrative action.
• Incitement of hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government.
• Potential to provoke public disorder through violence.

The exceptions to sedition safeguard genuine criticism. Consequently, articles critiquing government bills and policies would not be deemed seditious.

According to the Kedarnath Singh judgment, individuals can express opinions about the government and its actions as long as they do not incite violence against the government of India.

Defenses to a Charge of Sedition

• That the person did not speak or write the words, or make the sign or representations, or did not do any other act in question; or
• That he did not thereby bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection; or
• That such disaffection was not towards the Government of India; or
• There was no incitement of public disorder or violence against the government of India.

How Sedition Affects Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, but it is subject to certain restrictions, including public order and incitement to an offense.
• In the case of Kedarnath Singh, the Supreme Court interpreted sedition as requiring incitement to violence or public disorder. This interpretation upheld the constitutionality of sedition as a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression.
• However, in practice, the vagueness of terms like "disaffection" in the law has led to misuse, with authorities filing sedition charges against individuals for speech that opposes their political agenda.
• The impact on freedom of speech and expression is evident in cases where students, stand-up comedians, and others are booked for criticizing the government.

Sedition: An Outdated Law

• Sedition was introduced in India during British rule to suppress freedom movements.
• It was used to silence leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.
• In modern democracy, dissent and criticism are vital for government accountability.
• Sedition is now misused against activists, as seen during the CAA protests.
• Many jurists advocate for its removal due to its colonial roots.

The Legal History of Sedition Law

Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951)

• First case in independent India challenging the constitutionality of sedition.
• High Court emphasized that sedition requires incitement to violence or public disorder.
• Judgment noted sedition restricts freedom of speech and expression beyond reasonable limits.

Sabir Raza v. The State (1955)

• Allahabad High Court ruled that public order cannot restrict speech and expressions disaffecting the government.
• Threat to state security must be against the government system, not individuals.
• Sedition deemed unconstitutional.

Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)

• Allahabad High Court found sedition unconstitutional in a case against an agricultural labor activist.
• Restrictions on speech and expression not justified by potential public disorder.
• Dissenting political ideologies not threats to the state.

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

• Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of sedition for the first time.
• Contrary to high court rulings, sedition was upheld as constitutional.
• Sedition applicable only if it incites violence.
• Guidelines for Section 124A application were established.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2016)

• Supreme Court upheld principles from Kedarnath.
• No need to revisit sedition issue.

S.G Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)

• Sedition's constitutionality under review by the Supreme Court.
• Central government re-evaluating the law.
• Sedition on hold until re-examination is completed.

Sedition Law in India

• Sedition is often applied alongside other laws, such as Abetment to Sedition.

Abetment to Sedition

• Defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Involves instigating, conspiring, or aiding someone to commit sedition.

Punishment for Abetment to Sedition

• Imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine, even if sedition is not committed.
• If sedition causes harm, punishment can extend up to 14 years.
• Public servants concealing sedition plans face up to 10 years imprisonment.
• In other cases, punishments vary based on whether sedition is committed or not.

Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Sedition

Definition

• According to Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), when two or more individuals agree to engage in sedition or facilitate it, it constitutes criminal conspiracy to commit sedition.

Key Points

• There must be an agreement to commit sedition, or sedition should be a part of a legal agreement between the parties.
• Criminal conspiracy applies when there is an agreement to break the law or when an act is done towards committing sedition without an agreement.

Punishment under Section 120B of IPC

• The punishment for criminal conspiracy to commit sedition is the same as that for abetment of sedition.
• If a person is involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit sedition, they can face imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine, even if sedition is not ultimately carried out.
• If the act of sedition causes harm to anyone, the punishment can be increased to imprisonment for up to 14 years along with a fine.
• If a conspiratorvoluntarily hidesthe plan to commit sedition to aid its commission, the following punishments apply:

If the conspirator is a public servant:

• Imprisonment of up to 10 years.

In other cases:

• If sedition is committed, the punishment is imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine.
• If sedition is not committed, the punishment is imprisonment for 3 years and a fine.

Sedition by Multiple Persons with Common Intention

• According to Section 34 of the IPC, when several individuals commit a criminal act, such as sedition, with a common intention, each person is liable for the act as if they had done it alone.
• This principle is known as constructive criminality.
• For instance, if multiple individuals engage in sedition by inciting violence, each of them would be individually responsible for the act of sedition.

Statements Leading to Public Mischief

• Under sections 505(1)(b) and (c) of the Indian Penal Code, it is an offense to make, publish, or circulate any statement, rumor, or report with the intent to:
• Cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public, leading to the potential commission of an offense against the State or public tranquility.
• Incite any class or community of persons to commit an offense against another class or community.
• Therefore, actions such as:
• Making, publishing, or circulating seditious material with the intent to incite violence or public disorder.
• Encouraging any section of the public to commit sedition through published material.
• Inciting violence against one class by another through published seditious material.

Misuse of Sedition Laws in Recent Years

• The sedition law in India, as defined in Section 124A, equates "the government of India" with "the nation of India." This connection can lead to strong criticisms of the government being labeled as anti-national, even when expressed in a patriotic spirit.
• Sedition is often used by corrupt and authoritarian governments to suppress dissent and maintain power. The vague terms used in the sedition law, such as "disaffection," "hatred," and "contempt," make it easy for authorities to manipulate the law against individuals.
• Charges can be filed based on these ambiguous terms, leading to lengthy trials during which the accused are often detained with little chance of bail. The punishment for sedition, including life imprisonment, acts as a significant deterrent against opposing the government.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data for 2020, there were 73 cases registered under Section 124A with 0 convictions. In 2019, there were 93 cases registered, with 40 charge sheets filed and only one conviction.
• The conviction rate under Section 124A was a mere 3.3%, with only 30 cases tried and completed.

Notable Cases of Sedition Misuse

• Siddique Kappan: A Malayalam journalist was charged with sedition while on his way to report on the Hathras gang rape case.
• Kashmiri Students: Three Kashmiri scholarship students faced sedition charges for allegedly celebrating Pakistan's victory over India in a cricket match.

Recent Judicial Developments on Section 124A

• The Supreme Court of India is re-evaluating the constitutionality of sedition as an offence. It has decided to put Section 124A on hold in the case of S.G Vombatkere V. Union of India (2022).
• The Supreme Court's order includes the following points:
• Suspension of Ongoing Cases: All ongoing trials, appeals, and proceedings under Section 124A are currently suspended.
• Mixed Cases: If a sedition charge is part of a case with other charges, the proceedings can continue only if the court believes the accused will not be disadvantaged.
• New Cases: If a new case is filed under Section 124A, parties can seek relief from the court, considering the Supreme Court's suspension of sedition and the Union government's position.
• Government Actions: The government is advised not to file new cases, conduct investigations, or take any coercive actions under Section 124A during this period.

Case Laws on Sedition

Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors (2021)

Facts

• Vinod Dua, a senior journalist, hosted a YouTube show where he criticized the government's handling of COVID-19, questioning testing facilities, PPE kit availability, and the timing of ventilator and sanitizer exports.
• He accused the Prime Minister of gaining votes through acts of terrorism and discussed the significant labor migration during the lockdown.
• Dua was accused of inciting panic, hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the government through his comments.

Issues Raised

• Did Vinod Dua's comments constitute the offence of sedition under Section 124A?

Held

• The Supreme Court quashed the sedition charge, stating that Dua's comments were expressions of disapproval aimed at improving the situation, not incitements to violence or disorder.
• Dua's statements fell within the permissible limits set in the Kedar Nath Singh case, and minor factual inaccuracies did not amount to sedition.

State v Disha A. Ravi (2021)

Facts

• Disha Ravi, a Bengaluru environmental activist, was implicated in editing a toolkit aimed at garnering international support for farmers' protests in India. The toolkit, created by the 'Poetic Justice Foundation,' was deemed seditious by the state.
• The state alleged that Disha was involved in a conspiracy to incite violence in India, citing her participation in a Zoom meeting and connections with individuals present during the January 26, 2021, clash.

Issues Raised

• Was Disha Ravi engaged in peaceful protest and dissent, or was she involved in seditious activities?

Held

• The court granted Disha bail, emphasizing that citizens are the conscience keepers of the government in a democracy and cannot be imprisoned for disagreeing with state policies.
• It highlighted the importance of engaging with individuals of questionable credentials and found no direct link between Disha's actions and the January 26 violence.
• The right to seek a global audience without geographical barriers was upheld as part of Article 19.

Arun Jaitley v. The State of U.P. (2015)

Facts

• Arun Jaitley, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, wrote and posted a critical article on his Facebook page regarding the Supreme Court's NJAC judgment.
• The judicial magistrate took cognizance and booked him under Section 124A and Section 505 of the IPC.

Issues Raised

• Did the article constitute sedition under Section 124A?

Held

• The Allahabad High Court quashed the magistrate's order, stating that strong criticism of government measures or public officials does not amount to sedition.
• The article aimed to exercise freedom of speech and did not disrespect the judiciary in a manner constituting sedition.

Sanskar Marathe vs The State of Maharashtra (2015)

Facts

• Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, displayed cartoons critiquing Parliament, the Constitution, and the Ashok Emblem, leading to accusations of defamation and sedition.
• A non-bailable warrant was issued against him, but the charges of sedition were eventually dropped.

Issues Raised

• What is the legal standing when police invoke Section 124A in a case where Aseem Trivedi's actions seem to fall under Article 19 rights?

Held

• The Public Interest Litigation was resolved as the government issued guidelines for invoking Section 124A.
• The court noted that disloyalty to the government is not the same as criticizing its actions to improve conditions.
• Open criticism of government policies is not a valid reason to restrict freedom of expression, which includes expressing indignation against political corruption.

Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891)

Facts

• The Bengali newspaper 'Bangobasi' criticized the Age of Consent Act, accusing the British government of interfering with Hindu culture. The newspaper's proprietors, editor, manager, and printer were charged with sedition.
• The article's author was anonymous.

Issues Raised

• Did the article fall under sedition?
• Did the accused intend to create disaffection among readers?
• Did the accused intend to create such feelings through their publication?

Held

• The jury could not reach a decision, leading to a retrial in India's first sedition case.
• However, the prosecution was dropped when the accused apologized for the articles.

Chief Judge Petheram's Clarifications to the Jury:

• Disaffection and disapprobation are not the same.
• Disaffection is a lack of affection, while disapprobation is simple disapproval.
• A publisher can also be held for sedition, not just the writer.
• Sedition applies when words are intended to excite disaffection against the government.
• Disturbance or disaffection is not a necessary condition.
• There is a distinction between the government and the administration.

Sedition Laws in Different Countries

Sedition Laws in the United States of America

• Even in the land of freedom, sedition laws have been used to curb dissent.
• During the quasi-war with France, the Federalist government passed the Aliens and Sedition laws, targeting French-sympathizing aliens and non-citizens.
• The Sedition Act of 1798 made it a crime for Americans to publish or speak false or malicious statements about the federal government.
• Journalists for the Democratic-Republican Party were particularly targeted under this law.
• The Sedition Act was highly unpopular and was expired by the Republican administration on March 3, 1801.
• In World War I, the Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to incite disloyalty towards the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag.
• This Act was later repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Currently, seditious conspiracy and treason are crimes under the Federal Criminal Code in Articles 2384 and 2381, respectively.

Sedition Laws in the United Kingdom

• During the reign of the King, sedition was considered synonymous with treason.
• The Statute of Westminster of 1275 prohibited questioning the divine right of the King and the principles of feudal society.
• Seditious libel was equated with blasphemous libel, as the State and the Church were seen as one.
• The United Kingdom criminalized sedition with the Sedition Act of 1661.
• In 1977, the Law Reforms Committee recommended the removal of sedition provisions.
• The democratic government abolished blasphemous libel in 2008.
• Sedition and seditious libel were abolished by the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
• Interestingly, while the United Kingdom has eliminated sedition, India still retains it.

Sedition Laws in Hong Kong

• British introduced sedition law through the Sedition Ordinance of 1938, later becoming part of the Crime Ordinance of 1971.
• The law targeted pro-China factions and criminalized seditious words, publications, possession of seditious material, and acts with seditious intent.
• Currently, the scope of sedition has narrowed, requiring intent to cause violence or public disorder.
• The Chinese government implemented a national security law in Hong Kong, which has faced resistance.
• This law covers various offenses, including treason, subversion, and secession, and has split sedition into multiple discrete offenses with harsher punishments.

Sedition Laws in Russia

• In Russia, sedition is criminalized under the guise of treason and espionage.
• The Russian Criminal Code defines treason as acts by a Russian citizen involving the disclosure of state secrets or assisting a foreign entity in hostile activities against Russia.
• Espionage involves actions by foreign nationals or stateless persons related to state secrets or information collection under foreign intelligence orders.
• Recently, Russia passed bills criminalizing blatant disrespect for the state, officials, and society, as well as the sharing of false public interest information, labeled as fake news.

Conclusion

Sedition is an outdated colonial law that reinforces the idea of the "King is Supreme." In today's world, where human liberties are paramount, sedition has no place. Abolishing this law is crucial to uphold the right to dissent, which can positively contribute to the nation's development. Dissent should not be penalized.

However, sedition is just one tool in a larger toolbox. Even if sedition is abolished, the right to dissent can still be restricted through the misuse of laws like the UAPA,NSA, and preventive detention laws. It is essential to create an environment that encourages dialogue and tolerance for diverse opinions. Only then can India express its true voice.