Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. But today when the stench of fascism looms large, exercising this constitutional right can get one branded as anti-national, thrown behind bars or a lynch mob waiting outside to teach you a lesson. A law that has especially come in handy for the self-proclaimed nationalists of our times to suppress dissent is the archaic colonial era sedition law. The sedition law was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870 as fears of a possible uprising plagued the colonial authorities. Most of this penal code was retained intact after 1947.

Sedition Meaning :

Section 124A of IPC defines Sedition 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, the government established by law; or
• Whoever by the above means excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law, has committed the offence of sedition.

The Draconian Sedition Law:

• Section 124A only serve to give a legal veneer to the regime’s persecution of voices and movements against oppression by casting them as anti-national.
• Figures of the National Crime Records Bureau reveal that in the two years preceding the JNU case, there were a total of 77 sedition cases.
• Beyond the high-profile urban cases, the reach of Section 124-A has extended even to faraway places. An entire village in Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu had sedition cases slapped against it for resisting a nuclear power project. Adivasis of Jharkhand, resisting displacement, topped the list of those slapped with sedition in 2014.
• The recent sedition charge against cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu for hugging Pakistani Army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa during Prime Minister Imran Khan’s oath-taking ceremony shows the extent to which sedition law has been abused in India.
• Sedition law has been used time and again to silence journalists, politicians, intellectuals and social activists whose views are not conducive to that of the ruling power.
• Narrowing down the ambit of Sedition law not only protects the fundamental right to free speech and citizens’ right to criticise the government but also prevent its massive abuse.

Role of Judiciary in narrowing down the ambit of Sedition Law :

• In the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court laid down a clear meaning of what constituted sedition: if the comments, however strongly worded, do not have the tendency to incite violence, they will not amount to sedition.
• In the Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court ruled that mere raising of pro-Khalistan slogans, which evoked no response from the other members of the community, would not attract the charges of sedition.
• In the Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, the Supreme Court directed the courts to exercise care in invoking charges of sedition, reminding them that graver the nature of offence, higher the amount of care that needs to be exercised so the liberty of a citizen is not interfered with.
• In the Common Cause v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court said that authorities, while dealing with the offences under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, will be bound by the principles laid down in the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case, and sedition charges cannot be invoked for criticising the government.
• Thus Judiciary through various judicial pronouncements made it clear that the sedition law cannot be invoked for expressing a mere dissent with the government or the views of those in power, and that an incitement to violence is necessary for booking a person under sedition.

Role of Legislature in narrowing down the ambit of Sedition Law :

• Word ‘Sedition’ itself was not favoured by fundamental rights sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly for including the word sedition as a ground for restriction on freedom of speech.
• The intent of the drafters of our constitution should be taken into consideration by the incumbent Legislature too for understanding the ambit of the sedition law.
• Constitutional morality also demands that the government is bound to respect citizens’ right to freedom of speech and expression and Legislature should not impose unreasonable restrictions upon them in the garb of punishing seditious speech.
• The phrases “attempts to bring into hatred or contempt” and “attempts to excite disaffection” are to be removed and only that which results into actual breakdown into violence is to be considered
• The phrase “government established by law” should therefore be replaced by the word “state” because the act of criticising the government is well within the freedom of expression and right to dissent in a democracy.

The Twenty-First Law Commission of India has in it working paper observed that speaking against the government does not amount to sedition and people have a right to express dissent and criticise the government. Compensation cannot be a remedy against the illegalities committed by the state and its instrumentalities. A higher threshold should, therefore, be set for prosecuting someone under the sedition law so that citizens are not subject to harassment for merely expressing dissent.