The Law Commission is in the process of revisiting the section 124-A of Indian Penal Code.
It calls for a thorough reconsideration and presents the various issues related to it before the public for a national debate.
What is Sec 124 A of IPC?
Sec 124-A deals with sedition, and was introduced by the British colonial government in 1870.
It says that the act of Sedition is to bring hatred or contempt towards the Government established by law in India.
In this case, the punishment may be of imprisonment for life and fine, or imprisonment for 3 years and fine.
It was actually brought to suppress the freedom struggle prevalent then.
What does the previous Law Commission report say?
In an earlier report in 1968, the Law Commission had rejected the idea of repealing the Section.
In 1971, the panel wanted the scope of the section to be expanded.
It called for covering the Constitution, the legislature and the judiciary, in addition to the 'government to be established by law'.
It meant that ‘disaffection’ against all these institutions should not be tolerated.
The only dilution it mooted was to modify the wide gap between the two jail terms prescribed (either three years or life).
It called for fixing the maximum sanction at seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine.
What are the concerns?
Purpose - It is an irony to retain a provision that was used extensively to suppress the freedom struggle.
It is to be noted that, Britain itself abolished it 10 years ago.
Also, there have been repeated instances of misuse of the Section.
Definition - The foremost objection is that the definition of sedition remains too wide.
Under the present law, it offers scope to consider as seditious
strong criticism against government policies and personalities
slogans voicing disapprobation of leaders
depictions of an unresponsive or insensitive regime
In recent times the core principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in this regard has been forgotten.
It specifies that incitement to violence or tendency to create public disorder are the essential ingredients of the offence.
What is the way forward?
As long as sedition is seen as a reasonable restriction on free speech on the ground of preserving public order, it will be difficult to contain its mischief.
There are thus two ways of undoing the harm that sedition provision does to citizens’ fundamental rights:
It can be amended so that there is a much narrower definition of what constitutes sedition
The second and best course is to repeal the section altogether
