Tag: Section 124A

  • Retain law on sedition but with safeguards against misuse: Law Commission tells govt

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Law Commission has said it is of the considered view that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code dealing with sedition needs to be retained, though certain amendments could be introduced to bring about greater clarity regarding the usage of the provision.

    In its report submitted to the government, the panel said cognizant of the views on the misuse of Section 124A, it recommends that model guidelines curbing them be issued by the Centre.

    “In this context, it is also alternatively suggested that a provision analogous to Section 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) may be incorporated as a proviso to Section 154 of CrPC, which would provide the requisite procedural safeguard before filing of a FIR with respect to an offence under Section 124A of IPC,” chairman of the 22nd Law Commission Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retd) said in his covering letter to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.

    While it is imperative to lay down certain procedural guidelines for curbing any misuse of Section 124A of the IPC dealing with sedition by law enforcement authorities, any allegation of misuse of the provision does not by implication warrant a call for its repeal, the report said.

    The Commission said sedition being a “colonial legacy” is not a valid ground for its repeal.

    In its report submitted to Meghwal, the Law Commission also said the existence of laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act does not by implication cover all elements of the offence envisaged under Section 124A of the IPC.

    “Further, in the absence of a provision like Section 124A of IPC, any expression that incites violence against the government would invariably be tried under the special laws and counter-terror legislations, which contain much more stringent provisions to deal with the accused,” the report “Usage of the Law of Sedition,” said.

    It observed that each country’s legal system grapples with its own different set of realities.

    “Repealing Section 124A of IPC on the mere basis that certain countries have done so is essentially turning a blind eye to the glaring ground realities existing in India,” it said.

    In his covering letter, Justice Awasthi recalled that the constitutionality of Section 124A was challenged before the Supreme Court. “(The) Union of India assured the Supreme Court that it was re-examining Section 124A and the court may not invest its valuable time in doing the same.” 

    Pursuant to the same, the top court directed the central government and all the state governments to refrain from registering any FIR or taking any coercive measures, while suspending all continuing investigations in relation to Section 124A.

    Further, it also directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings be kept in abeyance.

    The report pointed out that it is often said that the offence of sedition is a colonial legacy based on the era in which it was enacted, especially given its history of usage against India’s freedom fighters.

    “However, going by that virtue, the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy. The police force and the idea of an All-India Civil Service are also temporal remnants of the British era. Merely ascribing the term ‘colonial’ to a law or institution does not by itself ascribe to it an idea of anachronism.”

    “The colonial origins of a law are by themselves normatively neutral. The mere fact that a particular”ar legal provision is colonial in its origin does not ipso facto validate the case for its repeal,” the panel said.

    “Even though, in our considered opinion, it is imperative to lay down certain procedural guidelines for curbing any misuse of Section 124A of IPC by the law enforcement authorities, any allegation of misuse of this provision does not by implication warrant a call for its repeal,” it said.

    There are a plethora of examples of various laws being misused by ill-intentioned individuals only to settle their scores in cases of personal rivalries and vested interests, with even the Supreme Court recognising the same in a number of decisions, it noted.

    “Never has there been any plausible demand to repeal any such laws merely on the ground that they are being misused by a section of the populace. This is so because, for every abuser of that law, there might be ten other genuine victims of any offence who direly need the protection of such a law,” the report said.

    What is then required in such cases is only to introduce legal ways and means to prevent the misuse of such a law, it said.

    In the same vein, while any alleged misuse of Section 124A of IPC can be reined in by laying down adequate procedural safeguards, repealing the provision altogether can have “serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country, with the subversive forces getting a free hand to further their sinister agenda as a consequence,” it felt.

    According to the note to the law minister, the Law Commission received a reference from the home ministry through a letter dated March 29, 2016, addressed to the Department of Legal Affairs in the law ministry for a study of the usage of the provision of Section 124A and suggest amendments, if any.

    NEW DELHI: The Law Commission has said it is of the considered view that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code dealing with sedition needs to be retained, though certain amendments could be introduced to bring about greater clarity regarding the usage of the provision.

    In its report submitted to the government, the panel said cognizant of the views on the misuse of Section 124A, it recommends that model guidelines curbing them be issued by the Centre.

    “In this context, it is also alternatively suggested that a provision analogous to Section 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) may be incorporated as a proviso to Section 154 of CrPC, which would provide the requisite procedural safeguard before filing of a FIR with respect to an offence under Section 124A of IPC,” chairman of the 22nd Law Commission Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retd) said in his covering letter to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    While it is imperative to lay down certain procedural guidelines for curbing any misuse of Section 124A of the IPC dealing with sedition by law enforcement authorities, any allegation of misuse of the provision does not by implication warrant a call for its repeal, the report said.

    The Commission said sedition being a “colonial legacy” is not a valid ground for its repeal.

    In its report submitted to Meghwal, the Law Commission also said the existence of laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act does not by implication cover all elements of the offence envisaged under Section 124A of the IPC.

    “Further, in the absence of a provision like Section 124A of IPC, any expression that incites violence against the government would invariably be tried under the special laws and counter-terror legislations, which contain much more stringent provisions to deal with the accused,” the report “Usage of the Law of Sedition,” said.

    It observed that each country’s legal system grapples with its own different set of realities.

    “Repealing Section 124A of IPC on the mere basis that certain countries have done so is essentially turning a blind eye to the glaring ground realities existing in India,” it said.

    In his covering letter, Justice Awasthi recalled that the constitutionality of Section 124A was challenged before the Supreme Court. “(The) Union of India assured the Supreme Court that it was re-examining Section 124A and the court may not invest its valuable time in doing the same.” 

    Pursuant to the same, the top court directed the central government and all the state governments to refrain from registering any FIR or taking any coercive measures, while suspending all continuing investigations in relation to Section 124A.

    Further, it also directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings be kept in abeyance.

    The report pointed out that it is often said that the offence of sedition is a colonial legacy based on the era in which it was enacted, especially given its history of usage against India’s freedom fighters.

    “However, going by that virtue, the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy. The police force and the idea of an All-India Civil Service are also temporal remnants of the British era. Merely ascribing the term ‘colonial’ to a law or institution does not by itself ascribe to it an idea of anachronism.”

    “The colonial origins of a law are by themselves normatively neutral. The mere fact that a particular”ar legal provision is colonial in its origin does not ipso facto validate the case for its repeal,” the panel said.

    “Even though, in our considered opinion, it is imperative to lay down certain procedural guidelines for curbing any misuse of Section 124A of IPC by the law enforcement authorities, any allegation of misuse of this provision does not by implication warrant a call for its repeal,” it said.

    There are a plethora of examples of various laws being misused by ill-intentioned individuals only to settle their scores in cases of personal rivalries and vested interests, with even the Supreme Court recognising the same in a number of decisions, it noted.

    “Never has there been any plausible demand to repeal any such laws merely on the ground that they are being misused by a section of the populace. This is so because, for every abuser of that law, there might be ten other genuine victims of any offence who direly need the protection of such a law,” the report said.

    What is then required in such cases is only to introduce legal ways and means to prevent the misuse of such a law, it said.

    In the same vein, while any alleged misuse of Section 124A of IPC can be reined in by laying down adequate procedural safeguards, repealing the provision altogether can have “serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country, with the subversive forces getting a free hand to further their sinister agenda as a consequence,” it felt.

    According to the note to the law minister, the Law Commission received a reference from the home ministry through a letter dated March 29, 2016, addressed to the Department of Legal Affairs in the law ministry for a study of the usage of the provision of Section 124A and suggest amendments, if any.

  • Why is ‘colonial’ sedition law still required 75 years after independence, SC asks Centre

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Concerned over “enormous misuse” of the colonial era penal law on sedition, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to “silence” people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress freedom movement.

    Agreeing to examine the pleas filed by Editors Guild of India and a former major general, challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said its main concern was the “misuse of law” leading to rise in number of cases.

    It issued the notice to the Centre, which was accepted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

    The non-bailable provision makes any speech or expression that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India” a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    “Mr Attorney (General), we want to ask some questions. This is the colonial era law and the same law was used by the British to suppress freedom movement. It was used by British to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Gokhale and others.”

    “Is it still necessary to keep this in statute even after 75 years of independence?” asked the bench which also comprised Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

    Observing that the provision on sedition has been put to “enormous misuse”, it also referred to alarming misuse of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act even after the top court set it aside long back and observed, “It can be compared to a carpenter, asked to cut a wood, cut the entire forest”.

    “A factionist can invoke these types of (penal) provisions to implicate the other group of people,” the CJI Ramana said, adding that if a particular party or people do not want to hear a voice, they will use this law to implicate others.

    The bench wondered at the continuance of the sedition law in statute book for last 75 years and said: “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision. Your government has been getting rid of stale laws.”

    The bench said that it was not blaming any state or government, but unfortunately, the executing agency misuses these laws and “there is no accountability”.

    During the hearing, conducted through video- conferencing, the bench said that if a police officer in a remote village wanted to fix a person then he can easily do so by using such a provision.

    Moreover, said the bench, in contrast to huge number of sedition cases lodged by police against persons, there was very low percentage of convictions in sedition cases and these are the issues which are needed to be decided.

    Lawyer Vrinda Grover quoted National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data and said there has been a consistent rise in the number of sedition cases being filed and between 2016 and 2019, there has been a 160 per cent increase in the number of cases filed for sedition.

    On the issue of cases culminating in convictions, she again referred to the data and said in 2019, 30 cases of sedition were decided, with 29 acquittals and one conviction, and the “rate of conviction is abysmal, being 3.3 per cent”.

    The CJI, on being told that another bench headed by Justice U U Lalit has been hearing a similar plea which has been fixed for further consideration on July 27, said that he would take a call on posting of the matters and notify the date of hearing.

    Attorney General K K Venugopal, who was asked to assist the bench in dealing with the case, defended the provision and said it be allowed to remain in the statute book and the court may lay down guidelines to curb the misuse.

    Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Editors Guild of India, said that a separate plea has been filed by the journalists’ body challenging the validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC and that plea can also be tagged along with the present one.

    He said that besides challenging the validity, the Guild has also sought framing of guidelines to curb the misuse of the law.

    The bench was hearing the fresh plea by former army officer, Major-General S G Vombatkere (Retd), challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC on the grounds that it causes a “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.

    It should be “unequivocally and unambiguously struck down”, the plea said.

    The bench, referring to the credentials of Vombatkere, said that he gave his entire life to the country and his motive in filing of the case cannot be questioned.

    “The petitioner contends that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech,” the plea said.

    There is need to take into account the “march of the times and the development of the law” before dealing with Section 124-A, it said.

    Earlier, a separate bench had sought response from the Centre on the plea challenging validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists — Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla — working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively.

    Meanwhile, during the day, former Union Minister Arun Shourie also moved the top court challenging the law.