Abstract
Sedition is defined as the illegal act done by the people against the Government in power. Sedition can be in the form of acts or speech done by the people to form anti-national views against the Government in power. It is basically done to harm the public peace or disrupt the harmony of the state. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code says that the punishment for such offence is harsh with minimum seven years of imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment. It is a cognizable, non- bailable and non-compoundable offence triable by the Court of Sessions.
Sedition is a permissible restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution which states that a reasonable restriction may be imposed by the Government. Sedition in the digital era with the use of social media is very harmful as it’s the easiest source to harm the public peace, government authorities and the state.
Introduction to Sedition.
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, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection against the Government established by law of India, shall be punished with minimum seven years of imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment. It is a cognizable, non- bailable and non-compoundable offence triable by the Court of Sessions[1].
The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and feelings of enmity.
Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government, without exciting or attempting, to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
History of Sedition
In the British Era, Section 124A was not an integral part of Indian Penal Code, 1860. But this Section was inserted into IPC by the IPC (Amendment) Act, 1870. By an amending act of 1898, this provision was later replaced by Section 124A. According to the British Law, under the old IPC, “Exciting or attempting to excite feelings or disaffection was considered as Sedition”.
Sedition: Meaning
The offence of sedition under section 124A is the doing of certain acts which would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt, or create disaffection against it; Bilal Ahmed Kaalo v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2].
Types of Sedition
Sedition can be classified into five specific categories:
1. To excite dissatisfaction against the king, Government, or constitution or against Parliament or the administration of Justice.
2. To promote, by unlawful means, any alteration in Church or State.
3. To incite a disturbance of the peace.
4. To raise discontent among the king’s subjects.
5. To excite class hatred.
Laws related to Sedition
The following are some laws which cover Sedition law:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 124A)[3].
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 95)[4].
3. The Seditious Meetings Act, 1911[5].
4. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (Section 2(o) (iii))[6].
Law of Sedition v. Freedom of Speech
In the 21st century of our democratic country, every case related to sedition has a basic defence that the act or speech was done in the boundation of “Article 19(1)(a)[7]” of the Indian Constitution which specifically states “the freedom of speech and expression”. These people do not understand the constitutionalism of our country. They present only those things which they want to present. They are not aware of the fact that the “Article 19(2)”[8] of the Indian Constitution which specifically states that “a reasonable restriction may be imposed by the Government if they occur to do an act or speech which harms the state and authority. If something occurs to be anti-national then they can’t use the power of Article 19(1)(a). It will be totally considered sedition not freedom of speech.
Sedition: Disloyalty In Action
“Sedition” has been described as disloyalty in action. The object of sedition law is to induce discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government and bring the administration of justice into contempt. Sedition is a crime against the society as it involves all those practices that result in conduct disturbance in the state or to lead to civil war which contempt the sovereign and promotes public disorder.
Digital Media: Platform to express sedition
The most intrinsic impact on society was caused with the evolution of the internet. The Internet is considered to be mass media, due to its vivid characteristic i.e. possibility of reaching every corner of the world instantly. The internet provides certain Social Network Platforms, which enables and entrusts us with the platform for expressing ourselves. Today almost every Second individual has access to the internet as well as available at one or more than one Social Network Sites like, Facebook, WordPress, Twitter. Upon these social platforms one connects with the other people around the globe and impart their expression in the form of information, ideas, and socializing. However at some place speech and expression over the internet leads to inciting or creating hatred, contempt and disaffection. These inciting speeches could be against religion, race, gender etc. but when this speech or expression is regarding the Government, which creates or incite disaffection, hatred or contempt, then people are charged with sedition. Such expressions are also considered to be seditious even when made over the internet.
For example, In October 2016, a Facebook user was booked for sedition for posting derogatory remarks against the Haryana government, the BJP and the RSS. In August 2016, the police arrested a Kashmiri engineer on the grounds of sedition, for ‘liking’ and posting a series of Facebook posts which called for India to withdraw from Kashmir. In December last year, the police charged a Malayali writer and theatre artiste with sedition for allegedly insulting the National Anthem via excerpts from his book that were posted on Facebook. In 2012, free speech activist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for posting caricatures on Facebook which mocked Parliament. One of the charges pressed against him was sedition. In this scenario, people deliberately choose to act offensive against the Government in power by using Article 19(1)(a) as their weapon for expression, ultimately which is unlawful.
Should Sedition law be scrapped ?
The law of Sedition is very tricky. It can be used in favour or against the favour. There is a fine line between criticism and anti-nationalism. In India, criticism is at its peak, people use Article 19(1)(a) as a boundation to criticise the state. But, they forget to understand the fine line between criticism and anti-nationalism. They are at the urge to express themselves so much, that they cross the line and they violate the law. Same goes with the Government, they also need to understand the difference between criticism and anti-nationalism. The Government needs to review their actions. Everything done by them is not Sedition. It’s very obvious that the people cannot use Article 19(1)(a) as a weapon against the Government in power and the Government cannot use Sedition as a weapon against the people of the country.
Case laws related to constitutional history of Sedition Law
Tara Singh v State of Punjab[9]
Section 124A was struck down as unconstitutional being contrary to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1).
Indra Das v State of Assam[10]
The Supreme Court reiterated that all laws, including Section 124A, have to be “read in a manner so as to make them in conformity with the Fundamental Rights”.
Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam[11]
The Supreme Court reiterated that the speeches which amount to “incitement to imminent action “can only be criminalized.
Shreya Singhal v Union of India[12]
The Supreme Court clearly drew distinction between “Advocacy” and “incitement”, in which only incitement can be punished.
Conclusion
Therefore we can conclude that acts of sedition can only be imposed when a person tends to create “disaffection” towards the Government which may lead to rebellion. Sedition and Freedom of expression are completely interwoven and inseparable, the fine gap is the interpretation of words by the reader. Internet and Social Media plays a major role in any situation as well as it is a coin with two folds. The one which enables and empowers millions of possibilities, while others misuse the same benefits. It depends on the individuals which aspect of the internet one uses. The exercise of these powers are up to individuals, the statements published or broadcasted over the internet could create mutiny even rebellious acts of violence. Therefore we can interpret that the internet does play a significant part as well as performs as a medium for seditious publication. One cannot curtail the expression over the internet nor can it be prohibited since it is a part of fundamental right, easily accessible. But we cannot deny the fact that the misuse of the Internet has led many innocent people to be charged for sedition. Sedition charges can be imposed even if the speech is made in digital form upon the internet. The only challenge the statute faces is with regard to anonymity over the Digital World. Altogether Sedition, Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Internet is a lethal combination for a democratic country, which cannot be curtailed.
References:
1. Sec 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Bilal Ahmed Kaalo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) Supreme Today 127
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641007/ (Visited on 20th December, 12:01 PM)
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/875455/ (Visited on 20th December, 12:36 PM)
5. http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/p59.html#:~:text=PREVENTION%20OF%20SEDITIOUS%20MEETINGS%20ACT%2C%201911&text=An%20Act%20to%20consolidate%20and,%5B22nd%20March%2C%201911.%5D (Visited on 20th December, 1:05 PM)
6. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1967-37.pdf (Visited on 20th December, 1:45 PM)
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1142233/ (Visited on 20th December, 2:25 PM)
8. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1142233/ (Visited on 20th December, 3:15 PM)
9. Tara Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 124.
10. Indra Das v State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380.
11. Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377.
12.Shreya Singhal v Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
About the Author:-
This Article is Authored by Aryan Sinha, 3rd Year law (BBA+LLB(H) student at Galgotias University, Greater Noida.
