Sedition and freedom of speech

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s rulings on cases of sedition give hope the law will be re-examined

What constitutes a sedition

Mere criticism: It has long been recognised that strident criticism of the government will not amount to an attempt to excite disaffection and disloyalty towards government.
Colonial legacy: The archaic and colonial view that an intemperate attack on an incumbent ruler should be met with fierce prosecution for sedition prevails among many in power even today.

Case Study: (A case of sedition in Himachal Pradesh)

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case registered in Himachal Pradesh against journalist Vinod Dua by invoking the narrowed-down meaning of what constitutes an offence under Section 124A of the IPC, the provision for sedition, set out in Kedar Nath Singh (1962).

Kedar Nath Singh Judgement:

Every journalist, the Court has ruled, is entitled to the protection of that judgment, which said: “comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal”.

Colonial Legacy:

The law on sedition has come a long way from the formulation of British-era judges Comer Petheram and Arthur Strachey that “feelings of disaffection” towards the government connote “absence of affection... hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility... and every form of ill-will towards the government”.

Supreme Court cases related to Sedition:

Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras

The court held that a law which restricted speech on the ground that it would disturb public order was unconstitutional.
It also held that disturbing the public order will mean nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow.
Thus, these decisions prompted the First Constitution Amendment, where Article 19 (2) was rewritten to replace “undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public order”.

Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar,1962

In 1962, the SC decided on the constitutionality of Section 124A in Kedar Nath Singh vs the State of Bihar.
It upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but limited its application to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”.
It distinguished these from “very strong speech” or the use of “vigorous words” strongly critical of the government.

Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab,1995

In 1995, the SC, in Balwant Singh vs the State of Punjab, held that mere sloganeering which evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.

Institutional vanity

Section 124A is essentially a provision which seeks to protect the government’s institutional vanity from disapprobation using the interests of public order and security of the state as a tool.

Vague terms under Section 124A

Its use of terms such as “bringing (government) into hatred or contempt” and “disloyalty and all feelings of enmity” continues to help the police to invoke it whenever there is either strong criticism or critical depiction of unresponsive or insensitive rulers.

Conclusion