Sedition Must Be Nixed, Proposal To Retain Must Be Rejected

The Law Commission of India recently proposed amendments to the law of sedition in order to prevent any perceived misuse of the provision. In its 279th report, the Commission suggested the retention of the law with certain modifications. 

According to the proposed amendment, anyone who uses words, signs, or visible representation to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the legally established government in India, with the intention of inciting violence or causing public disorder, would be punished with life imprisonment, along with the possibility of a fine.

The provision is an affront to free speech and its continuance is against basic constitutional precepts, which have at its centre the idea of criticism.

The Commission, led by former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, stated that the qualifying phrase "tendency to incite violence" refers to a mere inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder, rather than requiring proof of actual violence or an imminent threat of violence.

The Law Commission believes that Section 124A should be retained in the Indian Penal Code, but recommends incorporating the principles established in the Kedarnath Singh case to clarify the application of the provision. Additionally, the Commission suggests amending the punishment under this section to align it with other offenses in Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code. Recognising concerns about the misuse of Section 124A, the Commission proposes that the Central Government issue model guidelines to prevent such misuse. Alternatively, the Commission suggests the inclusion of a provision similar to Section 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as a safeguard before filing a First Information Report (FIR) related to an offense under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

At present, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with sedition, carries a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine, or imprisonment of up to three years along with a fine. Critics argue that this provision gives courts broad and arbitrary discretion in determining the punishment. In July 2022, the Supreme Court suspended the application of the sedition law after the government expressed its intent to review this colonial-era provision. Former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana had underlined the potential misuse of the law. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law in the Kedarnath Singh ruling, but restricted its application to those who incite violence. 

Sedition, as it stands, has no place in a constitutional democracy which proclaims itself as a marketplace of ideas. A law that allows the state to silence uncomfortable voices cannot be allowed to remain on the statute books.