feeds from sacw.net
print versionDon’t just reform – remove: Even a changed sedition law will be misused. SC’s review must end in scrapping Section 124A
May 11, 2022, 8:50 PM IST TOI Edit
There’s never been a better moment than now for consigning to history a law that goes back to the 19th century and that free India should have never had on its statutes for so long. GoI has agreed that sedition law provisions need re-examination, and the Supreme Court has strongly restrained all authorities from filing cases under IPC Section 124A till the review is complete. The court has also rightly asked that bail be expedited for those already charged under these provisions. We should also note that Narendra Modi has added the considerable weight of his personality and office to these efforts. But all of this will amount to little if the review ends in merely “reforming” the law – sedition provisions must go.
These columns have long argued that a sedition law, in any form, is an ever-present threat to civil liberties, an invitation to authorities to misuse it, and a perfect opportunity for politicians in office to settle scores. Therefore, no matter how finely-grained a review is, and however sincere the intent of both SC and GoI to guard against misuse of a reformed law, there’s little doubt it will be misused. The problem lies in the dangerously vague concept of ‘sedition’. State and local authorities will always find a way to use it as a blunt instrument. And local courts, as is well-established, very rarely question FIRs based on such laws. Remember that quite a few attempts were made to fine-tune the law to prevent its brute-force application.
The 1962 Kedar Nath Singh judgment by SC attempted to narrow sedition’s application to instances betraying an “intention” and “tendency” to cause public disorder or endanger the security of the state. But words like “hatred”, “contempt”, “disaffection”, which were in the colonial era law and are still present in provisions, and words like “intention” and “tendency”, lend themselves to broad and subjective interpretations. Such subjectivity simply cannot be removed by tweaking the law. There was also the 1995 Balwant Singh judgment by SC that said mere sloganeering doesn’t amount to sedition. That, too, has had little effect. Slogans and now tweets and chants are seen as enough for slapping a sedition case. Therefore, the process underway now must end in erasing this blot on India’s democracy.
Sedition is of course not the only law that threatens civil liberties and is misused against critics of those in office. UAPA is a prime example of another law that needs a relook. Higher courts, and even some lower courts, have already made caustic observations on police use of UAPA as a tool of repression and harassment. Terrorism is cited as a justification for UAPA, but even granting that, the law needs to be pared down.
[2] The Telegraph
Hammer blow: Editorial on Supreme Court’s decision on sedition
The interim order implies that existing proceedings be kept in abeyance and that neither the states nor the Centre can lodge fresh first information reports under this section
The Editorial Board | Published 12.05.22, 02:22 AM
The Centre had been hemming and hawing on sedition — a relic of the colonial era — for a while now. Two days after spiritedly defending this archaic legislation, it surprisingly adopted a conciliatory stance, stating in an affidavit that it is amenable to re-examining and reconsidering the provision at an “appropriate forum”. One way of nipping this equivocation in the bud was to deliver a clear message. The Supreme Court — the foremost custodian of liberty in India — has done just that. In a historic judgment, the highest court of the land has ordered that the sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code be kept in abeyance till the government re-examines it. The interim order implies that existing proceedings, including pending trials and appeals, would be kept in abeyance and that neither the states nor the Centre can lodge fresh first information reports under this section. Moreover — this is equally important — those lodged in prison can approach relevant courts for bail. Apart from its progressive tenor, this judgment is yet another instance of the apex court’s ability to achieve a fine balance between the reach of the judiciary and the executive. It must, however, be noted that the executive’s position on the matter has been consistently regressive. Earlier, the Narendra Modi government had even argued that instances of abuse of the provision — there are quite a few — cannot offer grounds for reconsidering a binding judgment by a Constitution bench.
Mr Modi’s government must now act on the momentum generated by the enlightened judiciary. This is because even though the conviction rate under sedition is poor — 13 out of 13,000 accused had been found guilty according to one estimate — the provision is a weapon that governments — including Mr Modi’s regime — employ routinely to harass citizens and stifle their freedoms. The Supreme Court has been acutely aware of this history of repression across decades and has mentioned it during these deliberations. Apparently, the Centre’s U-turn on the matter has come on the behest of the prime minister whose stated objective is to rid India of the baggage of outdated laws. If this is true, Mr Modi must take things further. Sedition has no place in a functioning democracy. The executive must get rid of it. That will mitigate — somewhat — persistent public concerns with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s propensity to use regressive laws to crush dissent and criticism.
