News Analysis India

Tag: Sedition

  • 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.

  • PFI protest slogan video: Pune police takes U-turn, says sedition charge not invoked

    By PTI

    PUNE: In a U-turn, the Pune police on Sunday evening denied adding the sedition charge in connection with a case against the Popular Front of India (PFI) activists and the alleged raising of pro-Pakistan slogans during a protest organised here by the outfit.

    Earlier, senior inspector Pratap Mankar of the Bundgarden police station, where the case has been registered, said section 124A (punishment for sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been added in the case, but the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone II) Sagar Patil later made it clear that the charge has not been slapped.

    Police had registered the case against 60-70 suspected PFI activists for unlawful assembly in connection with the protest held outside the district collector’s office on Friday.

    Mankar said the police have added IPC sections 124A (sedition), 109 (act committed in conse­quence of abetment), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 153 A and B (promoting enmity between different groups) in the First Information Report (FIR).

    However, DCP Patil later said, “We did not add section 124A in the case. The Supreme Court order says this section cannot be invoked as one case pertaining to this is already going on in the court.”

    The apex court had in May put on hold the colonial-era penal law on sedition till an “appropriate” government forum re-examines it and directed the Centre and states not to register any fresh FIR invoking the offence.

    A video had surfaced on social media, which purportedly shows that the “Pakistan Zindabad” slogan was raised a couple of times when the agitating PFI activists were being bundled into a police vehicle on Friday.

    The protest was organised against the recent nationwide raids on the outfit and the arrest of its activists. During the protest, the police detained around 40 protesters.

    Patil said earlier in the day that some videos were circulating on social media and a thorough investigation was being conducted.

    “The videos which were available on social media will be sent for forensic investigation and we will take strict action,” he said.

    Earlier on Sunday, Maharashtra Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis directed the Pune police commissioner to slap the sedition charge.

    “We do not support such slogans. The anti-India slogans will not be tolerated in the state as well as in the country. I have instructed the Pune police commissioner to file a case invoking sedition in the matter,” he told reporters in Pune.

    The raising of controversial slogans had led to a huge outrage, with leaders from BJP and MNS demanding stringent action. Congress had demanded a ban on organisations like PFI.

    In a massive crackdown on the PFI, multi-agency teams spearheaded by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had, on Thursday, arrested 106 leaders and activists of the radical Islamic outfit in near-simultaneous raids in 15 states for allegedly supporting terror activities in the country.

    Maharashtra and Karnataka accounted for 20 arrests each, Tamil Nadu (10), Assam (9), Uttar Pradesh (8), Andhra Pradesh (5), Madhya Pradesh (4), Puducherry and Delhi (3 each) and Rajasthan (2).

    PUNE: In a U-turn, the Pune police on Sunday evening denied adding the sedition charge in connection with a case against the Popular Front of India (PFI) activists and the alleged raising of pro-Pakistan slogans during a protest organised here by the outfit.

    Earlier, senior inspector Pratap Mankar of the Bundgarden police station, where the case has been registered, said section 124A (punishment for sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been added in the case, but the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone II) Sagar Patil later made it clear that the charge has not been slapped.

    Police had registered the case against 60-70 suspected PFI activists for unlawful assembly in connection with the protest held outside the district collector’s office on Friday.

    Mankar said the police have added IPC sections 124A (sedition), 109 (act committed in conse­quence of abetment), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 153 A and B (promoting enmity between different groups) in the First Information Report (FIR).

    However, DCP Patil later said, “We did not add section 124A in the case. The Supreme Court order says this section cannot be invoked as one case pertaining to this is already going on in the court.”

    The apex court had in May put on hold the colonial-era penal law on sedition till an “appropriate” government forum re-examines it and directed the Centre and states not to register any fresh FIR invoking the offence.

    A video had surfaced on social media, which purportedly shows that the “Pakistan Zindabad” slogan was raised a couple of times when the agitating PFI activists were being bundled into a police vehicle on Friday.

    The protest was organised against the recent nationwide raids on the outfit and the arrest of its activists. During the protest, the police detained around 40 protesters.

    Patil said earlier in the day that some videos were circulating on social media and a thorough investigation was being conducted.

    “The videos which were available on social media will be sent for forensic investigation and we will take strict action,” he said.

    Earlier on Sunday, Maharashtra Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis directed the Pune police commissioner to slap the sedition charge.

    “We do not support such slogans. The anti-India slogans will not be tolerated in the state as well as in the country. I have instructed the Pune police commissioner to file a case invoking sedition in the matter,” he told reporters in Pune.

    The raising of controversial slogans had led to a huge outrage, with leaders from BJP and MNS demanding stringent action. Congress had demanded a ban on organisations like PFI.

    In a massive crackdown on the PFI, multi-agency teams spearheaded by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had, on Thursday, arrested 106 leaders and activists of the radical Islamic outfit in near-simultaneous raids in 15 states for allegedly supporting terror activities in the country.

    Maharashtra and Karnataka accounted for 20 arrests each, Tamil Nadu (10), Assam (9), Uttar Pradesh (8), Andhra Pradesh (5), Madhya Pradesh (4), Puducherry and Delhi (3 each) and Rajasthan (2).

  • Big question mark over Election Commission’s fairness in last few years: Prashant Bhushan

    By PTI

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

    NAGPUR: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Sunday said the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has come under cloud in the last few years.

    He accused the ECI of keeping mum when big leaders from the ruling party violate the poll code, while acting swiftly against the opposition parties in such cases, and also claimed that the schedule of elections is made keeping in mind the convenience of the government.

    Bhushan alleged that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and those speaking against the government face sedition and other serious charges, and they are not able to get bail for years.

    He was speaking on the topic ‘Challenges before Democracy ‘ during a programme organised here by ‘Deshonnati’, a Marathi daily.

    “After T N Seshan became the chief election commissioner, for many years we could see that the Election Commission was very fair and impartial. But in the last six to seven years, a big question mark has arisen on its fairness,” he said.

    The Election Commission takes action if the Model code of conduct is violated by the opposition parties. But it keeps quiet when big leaders from the ruling party violate it. We have been witnessing this for a very long time, he alleged.

    The election dates are prepared as per the convenience of the government, he said.

    “Earlier, even the government did not know what dates will be decided by the EC for elections. But now, it is being witnessed that representatives of the ruling party even before the formal announcement tell what the polling dates are and the same dates are later announced by the EC,” he said.

    “The reason for the EC not being fair anymore. The problem with this has always been the selection in the poll watchdog is done by the government and there is no independent selection committee. And now, what the government is doing is that it is selecting people mostly from Gujarat and they are those who will do what the government will ask them to do. This also is an issue before democracy,” he said.

    Bhushan also alleged that there was a lack of independence in all regulatory institutions, and termed it as one of the biggest problems. He said the judiciary was formed to protect the fundamental rights of people and to keep the legislature and the executive within limits.

    “But now we are seeing that this is not happening. Those speaking against the government are facing sedition and sometimes false cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They are not able to get bail for years and this is being done blatantly. Our judiciary is not able to act against it. Hence, the independence of the judiciary is also under threat,” he said.

    “Media is also being controlled by the government. The police agencies are also being used for political use. The selection of some agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Income Tax department is completely in the hands of the government, which has put democracy in real danger,” he alleged.

    On the electronic voting machines (EVMs), he said that although there was no significant manipulation in EVMs at present, in the coming times it cannot be ruled out.

    “There is a possibility of manipulation and I feel EVMs are very dangerous. Paper ballots should return and they have returned in most of the countries,” he said.

    In order to tackle these challenges, a number of reforms can be brought by introducing Initiatives and Referendum law, Pre-legislative Transparency and Consultation law, he said, adding that parliamentary committees should be revived.

    Since the opposition has become weak now, these reforms cannot be done by it alone and hence people need to raise their voices now. They can raise voices against unfair practices like which was done for the Lokpal Bill.

    People can launch big agitations on issues like unemployment and privatisation of public sector units, which will also strengthen the opposition, he said.

    Replying to a query by PTI on the sidelines of the programme about why the Supreme Court was not taking up the issue of electoral bonds on a priority basis, Bhushan said the government was not interested in the issue and probably they were stalling it.

    “However, with the new Chief Justice of India at the helm, the matter will be heard,” he said.

    Bhushan has filed a PIL challenging laws permitting funding of political parties through the electoral bond scheme.

    When asked whether the opposition parties would be able to put up a united fight against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the next elections, he said he was not sure whether united opposition would be a good idea or not.

    “But, in any case, civil society needs to play a major role to any major political change is to be brought in the country,” he said.

  • ‘Would be appropriate to put it in abeyance’: SC puts sedition law on hold till Centre reconsiders the law

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked both the Centre and states to refrain from registering any FIR invoking sedition charges.

    All pending cases, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed for sedition should be kept in abeyance, said the apex court.

    It also said that the relief granted to accused to continue, while fixing the month of July for hearing pleas challenging validity of the provision.

    “It would be appropriate to put the law in abeyance. It is hoped States will not register new cases for sedition.” The bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.

    During the course of hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Centre had said they have a proposed draft on the plan to deal with future sedition cases till the Union government reexamines the provision of law.

    “We have a proposed draft. We cannot prevent police from registering a cognizable offence under the provision but says an FIR under sedition law would be registered only if area SP or similar rank officer is satisfied that facts of a case.” He had said.

    “My concern is that we are dealing with a cognizable offence and we do not know the gravity of the offence. Cases are being heard by judicial forums. Staying a statutory provision that is upheld by a constitution bench would not be correct.” He added that with respect to the pending cases.

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Central government to clarify as to what would happen to pending and future sedition cases, as the Centre has decided to re-examine and reconsider the validity of section 124A (sedition law) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The centre has to give answers to these two questions on Wednesday.

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners had said that people are being arrested because of this provision and this would not be right for them. 

    “The constitution does not say this… It is for the judiciary to consider whether something is constitutional or not….. Kedarnath is based on federal court judgement. That is why it says in the judgement that state is government. The state became a republic later. Hence, making it a separate entity. State and government are not the same thing now…” He added.

    Justice Surya Kant had asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on how the use of the provision will be dealt at the ground level as local police operates it the most.

    “In Kedar Nath the provision was melted down. In 2021 also. But at ground level, who is operating the law. The local police is operating. Unless you issue a direction, that you are reconsidering the provision and no cases be registered…He added that if serious happens, there are other penal laws to take care of it. “ He said to the SG.

    The Central government in a fresh affidavit before the Supreme Court had said that it has decided to reconsider & re-examine the provision (Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860) dealing with the sedition law.

    The Union government had asked the top court to await the exercise of reconsideration of examining the validity of the law.

    “In view of the aforesaid it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble court may not invest time in examining the validity of section 124A of the IPC once again and be pleased to await the exercise of reconsideration to be undertaken by the Government of India before an appropriate forum where such reconsideration is constitutionally permitted,” the affidavit reads.

    The Central government had said that it is committed to maintaining and protecting the sovereignty of the nation as well as removing outdated colonial laws. 

    “When the country is celebrating Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav (75 years since independence) the government is working to shed colonial baggage”, it said.

    “In that spirit, the government of India has scrapped over 1,500 outdated laws since 2014-15, it added”It has also ended over 25,000 compliance burdens which were causing unnecessary hurdles to the people of our country. Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been de-criminalised. This is an ongoing process. These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mindset and thus have no place in today`s India,” the Centre said.

    The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of section 124A of the Indian Penal code, 1860.

  • Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutionality of sedition law on April 27

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear the two pleas challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The top court will be hearing the pleas by the Editors Guild of India and a former army officer Major General SG Vombatkere.

    Last year in July, The top court had agreed to examine the pleas and had asked the Central government why it is not repealing the provision that was used to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.

    The plea, filed on behalf of Major-General SG Vombatkere (Retd.) said that Section 124A of the IPC is ultra vires Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

    “… statute criminalizing 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 had contended.

    Several pleas challenging the colonial law are pending before the top court.

    In April 2021, another bench headed by Justice UU Lalit had issued notice on the pleas filed by two journalists – Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla working in Manipur and Chhattisgarh respectively, had pleaded before the top court to declare the provision unconstitutional.

    The petition by the journalists had said that Section 124-A fails to meet the international standard of ‘legality’ which India is under the obligation meet as a party to the ICCPR, and  the terms ‘intention’ and ‘tendency’ in the interpretation of Section 124-A are so subjective that the law is uncertain and unascertainable and are an invitation to abuse by authorities. 

    The plea by journos had alleged that Section 124-A is unnecessary to protect the interests of state security and public disorder, and is duplicated by more recent legislation which directly and sufficiently prevents and deals with the mischief of public disorder and public violence.

  • Punjab and Haryana HC grants bail to farmer-activist booked for sedition

    By PTI
    CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday granted bail to farmer-activist from Jind, Dalbir Singh, who was booked by Haryana Police for sedition and other charges.

    Singh had filed two petitions seeking regular bail in the FIR registered in February 2017 with sedition and other charges against him and another case registered on May 24, 2021 by the Haryana Police in Jind district.

    According to the two FIRs, the petitioner had given objectionable speeches against Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar which could have resulted in caste-based division and were a threat to the peace and harmony of the society.

    Singh was arrested days after the registration of the second FIR.

    He had moved the high court against the state of Haryana by filing two petitions through senior Congress leader and advocate Randeep Singh Surjewala and counsel R Kartikeya for regular bail in the FIR registered in 2017 and in May this year at Jind’s Sadar Police Station.

    Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy, Justice Avneesh Jhingan said in his order.

    “While dealing with the petitions for grant of regular bail, this court has no occasion to consider the merits of the allegations in detail. Suffice to say that freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy.

    “At this stage must hasten to add that embargo to freedom of speech is prescribed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India itself,” the court said.

    The court said the nature of contents of the speeches would be subject matter of trial as to whether it was a lawful protest against the policies and working of the government or had a different goal and intention.

    “Be that as it may, the investigation in both the cases is complete. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. On mere apprehension that bail will be misused, it would not be appropriate to deny petitioner of his personal liberty.

    “The petitioner is granted bail, subject to furnishing surety bail bonds to the tune of Rs 2 lakh each in both the FIRs before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.”

    The judge, in his order, further mentioned that “needless to say that in case there is a misuse of bail granted to the petitioner, the state would always be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail order”.

    The counsels for the petitioner had submitted that it is a case of false implication.

    It was argued that the petitioner was only exercising his fundamental right to protest.

    Petitioner has a right to criticise the functioning of the state, they submitted.

    The counsel for the state opposed the bail while submitting that if enlarged on bail, Singh would indulge in similar activities and will create a law and order problem.

  • UAPA, sedition law misused to stifle dissent, needs to be repealed, say former SC judges

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Four former Supreme Court judges Saturday batted for repeal of penal provision on sedition and stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) saying these are usually misused to stifle dissent and quell the voices which ask questions from the government.

    Referring to the death of 84-year-old Father Stan Swamy, booked under UAPA, in jail, one of the judges Aftab Alam said, “I submit, UAPA has failed us on both counts: National security and Constitutional Freedoms.”

    Justice Alam, and fellow former judges Deepak Gupta, Madan B Lokur, and Gopal Gowda spoke at a public discussion on a topic “Democracy, dissent and draconian law – should UAPA and sedition law should have a place in the statute books?” While Justice Alam said the process of trial becomes a punishment for many in such cases, Justice Lokur was of the view that there should be a system of compensation for those who are wrongfully implicated and later acquitted.

    Echoing the same view, Justice Gupta expressed that these draconian laws have no place in a democracy.

    Notably, Justice Gowda was of the opinion that the legislations have now become a weapon against dissent and that they need to be abrogated.

    “One of the criticisms of the UAPA is that it has a very low rate of conviction but a high rate of pendency. It is the process that becomes the punishment,” said Justice Alam.

    Quoting the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, he said that 2,361 UAPA cases were pending in trial in 2019 out of which 113 were disposed of with conviction in 33 cases, acquittal in 64, and discharge in 16 which brings the rate of conviction to 29.2 percent.

    “If compared against the number of cases registered or people arrested, the rate of conviction comes down to 2 percent, and the pendency rate increases to 98 percent,” the former apex court judge rued.

    He said that the UAPA has failed the country on two counts – national security and constitutional freedom and must be repealed.

    Concurring with Justice Alam, Justice Gupta elaborated on the misuse of the sedition law and UAPA and said that it has been made harsher and harsher over time and should be shown the door as soon as possible.

    “In a democracy, dissent is essential and draconian laws have no place. In the last few years, laws have been misused to stifle dissent and quell the voices which ask questions from the government,” he said.

    Alluding to the death of UAPA accused Stan Swamy and arrest of a man in Manipur under the National Security Act (NSA) for saying that cow dung is not a cure for COVID-19, he asked if “India has become a police state”.

    Meanwhile, even though Justice Lokur agreed that there is a need to repeal the draconian laws, he said that not only will they “never go anywhere, but National Security Act (NSA) will also be made to be very active to quell dissent”.

    He suggested that the only remedy is accountability and compensation for those who are acquitted after long periods of incarceration.

    Further, Justice Gowda noted that massive reforms are necessary in special security legislations as they “reek of an authoritarian impulse which is dangerous in a constitutional democracy”.

    “Legal reforms are imperative. Provisions in these special laws that accord impunity to State excesses need to be repealed. Stringent guidelines need to be laid down for the exercise of these powers,” he said.

    Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who also spoke at the webinar, said that UAPA and sedition are being used to stifle dissent and crush the freedom of speech and that the time has come to see whether they are in tune with the Constitution.

    The discussion was organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Human Rights Defenders Alert (HRDA).

  • UAPA, sedition law misused to stifle dissent, needed to be repealed; say former SC judges

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Four former Supreme Court judges Saturday batted for repeal of penal provision on sedition and stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) saying these are usually misused to stifle dissent and quell the voices which ask questions from the government.

    Referring to the death of 84-year-old Father Stan Swamy, booked under UAPA, in jail, one of the judges Aftab Alam said, “I submit, UAPA has failed us on both counts: National security and Constitutional Freedoms.”

    Justice Alam, and fellow former judges Deepak Gupta, Madan B Lokur, and Gopal Gowda spoke at a public discussion on a topic “Democracy, dissent and draconian law – should UAPA and sedition law should have a place in the statute books?” While Justice Alam said the process of trial becomes a punishment for many in such cases, Justice Lokur was of the view that there should be a system of compensation for those who are wrongfully implicated and later acquitted.

    Echoing the same view, Justice Gupta expressed that these draconian laws have no place in a democracy.

    Notably, Justice Gowda was of the opinion that the legislations have now become a weapon against dissent and that they need to be abrogated.

    “One of the criticisms of the UAPA is that it has a very low rate of conviction but a high rate of pendency. It is the process that becomes the punishment,” said Justice Alam.

    Quoting the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, he said that 2,361 UAPA cases were pending in trial in 2019 out of which 113 were disposed of with conviction in 33 cases, acquittal in 64, and discharge in 16 which brings the rate of conviction to 29.2 percent.

    “If compared against the number of cases registered or people arrested, the rate of conviction comes down to 2 percent, and the pendency rate increases to 98 percent,” the former apex court judge rued.

    He said that the UAPA has failed the country on two counts – national security and constitutional freedom and must be repealed.

    Concurring with Justice Alam, Justice Gupta elaborated on the misuse of the sedition law and UAPA and said that it has been made harsher and harsher over time and should be shown the door as soon as possible.

    “In a democracy, dissent is essential and draconian laws have no place. In the last few years, laws have been misused to stifle dissent and quell the voices which ask questions from the government,” he said.

    Alluding to the death of UAPA accused Stan Swamy and arrest of a man in Manipur under the National Security Act (NSA) for saying that cow dung is not a cure for COVID-19, he asked if “India has become a police state”.

    Meanwhile, even though Justice Lokur agreed that there is a need to repeal the draconian laws, he said that not only will they “never go anywhere, but National Security Act (NSA) will also be made to be very active to quell dissent”.

    He suggested that the only remedy is accountability and compensation for those who are acquitted after long periods of incarceration.

    Further, Justice Gowda noted that massive reforms are necessary in special security legislations as they “reek of an authoritarian impulse which is dangerous in a constitutional democracy”.

    “Legal reforms are imperative. Provisions in these special laws that accord impunity to State excesses need to be repealed. Stringent guidelines need to be laid down for the exercise of these powers,” he said.

    Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who also spoke at the webinar, said that UAPA and sedition are being used to stifle dissent and crush the freedom of speech and that the time has come to see whether they are in tune with the Constitution.

    The discussion was organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Human Rights Defenders Alert (HRDA).

  • Sedition cases jump 160 per cent between 2016-19: Rights lawyer Vrinda Grover

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Sedition cases spiked by 160 per cent between 2016 to 2019 and conviction rate in such matters stood at just 3.3 per cent in 2019, according to an analysis of officlal data by a rights lawyer.

    The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, referred to and quoted by rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, assumes significance in view of the observations of an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana that there have been “enormous misuse” of the colonial era penal law on sedition and very low rate of conviction in such cases.

    Grover, using the NCRB data, told PTI that there has been a consistent rise in the number of sedition cases being filed, and between 2016 to 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 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”.

    Concurring with Grover, senior advocate Geeta Luthra said that the conviction rate is low in such cases because the basic principle and ingredient for invoking the law is not there in most cases.

    “The prosecution may not even produce evidence or file charge sheet because their intention is only to put someone behind the bars. It is not that the government wants to necessarily punish somebody. It is for sending a message across and making dissent disappear,” she added.

    Mrinal Bharti, lawyer and senior partner in MZM Legal firm, who represents media houses and journalists facing sedition cases, said the cases are foisted by the government of the day to quell the dissent.

    “The reason for poor conviction rate is obvious as there was hardly any material to establish the offence and moreover, police do not investigate such cases properly,” he added.

    Grover also attributed the spike in sedition cases to the rising authoritarianism in governance and claimed that the State Executive is increasingly resorting to it to silence any criticism, questions, or dissent raised by citizens through the exercise of freedom of speech.

    ALSO READ | ‘Heavily abused’: Ex-minister Arun Shourie moves SC against sedition law

    She further said that out of 30 cases of sedition decided in 2019, there was conviction in only one case, adding that the “rate of conviction is abysmal, being 3.3 percent.”

    Calling it as a “vestige of colonial rule”, she said that the State is foisting sedition cases to silence citizens, intimidate the public, and throttle democracy.

    “Sedition cases foisted based on trumped-up charges which fall upon judicial scrutiny; often after people have suffered long incarceration as undertrials,” she added.

    Luthra, however, said that even though the law is being misused rampantly, more and more people are becoming conscious that it should be abolished.

    “I cannot tell if it is being misused or invoked more, but I definitely think that people are becoming more conscious,” Luthra said about the law the existence of which was questioned by the apex court for the last 75 years.

    The top court asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to “silence” people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.

    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.

  • Rahul Gandhi welcomes Supreme Court’s observation on sedition law 

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court’s observation about the sedition law and asking the Centre whether it was still needed 75 years after Independence.

    Concerned over the “enormous misuse” of the colonial-era penal law, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to “silence” people like Mahatma Gandhi to suppress the freedom movement.

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

    Several Opposition leaders and civil society activists hailed the apex court for the observation and expressed the hope that the legislation would be “thrown out”.

    “We welcome this observation by the Supreme Court,” Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter.

    The Supreme Court bench, which agreed to examine pleas challenging the constitutionality of section 124A (sedition) in the IPC, also issued notice to the Centre.

    “We do not know why the government is not taking a decision.

    Your government has been getting rid of stale laws,” it said.

    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.