Friday, March 18, 2016

[Editorial # 87] Be bold in revisiting the sedition law : The Hindu

[Following editorial has been published in The Hindu on 18th March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

The government’s admission in Parliament that the present definition of ‘sedition’ in the Indian Penal Code is too wide and requires reconsideration, is the first indication that the fallout of the Kanhaiya Kumar episode has had a chastening effect on the ruling party. There seems to be a realisation that invoking the draconian penal provision against students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University was an act of overreach by the Delhi Police. Further, legal luminaries had pointed out that the essential ingredient of sedition — an imminent threat to public order — was absent in the case. Opinion is growing that the relevant provision, Section 124-A, has no place on the statute book. While Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh assured Opposition members that an all-party meeting on the issue would be convened after the Law Commission submitted its report on the matter, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju made a pointed reference to concerns that the definition of ‘sedition’ was very wide. He also sought to clarify that he was not discussing the merits of the case against JNU students or defending the action of the Delhi Police, indicating a significant political climbdown. In other remarks, Mr. Rijiju recalled that the Law Commission in its 42nd Report had rejected the idea of repealing the section altogether. A look at the 1971 report shows that in fact it wanted to expand the term relating to exciting “disaffection towards the government established by law” to cover disaffection towards the Constitution, Parliament, the government and legislatures of the States, and the administration of justice.

In penal law, vague and ‘over-broad’ definitions of offences often result in mindless prosecutions based merely on the wording of the act that seems to allow both provocative and innocuous speeches to be treated as equally criminal. While upholding sedition as an offence that fell under the ‘public order’ restriction on free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that it ought to be invoked only if a particular speech or action had a “pernicious tendency to create public disorder”. Words such as “excites or attempts to excite disaffection” or “brings into or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt” are unacceptably vague, and the further explanation that ‘disaffection’ includes “disloyalty and all feelings of enmity” compounds the problem. The provision in effect appears to demand ‘affection’ towards the government, except for a general exception allowing disapproval of governmental measures. Two High Courts had declared Section 124-A unconstitutional before the Supreme Court upheld the section in 1962 in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. The Law Commission, while revisiting the issue, should take into account recent developments, especially the flagrant instances of misuse of the sedition law and the tendency to invoke it against those involved in strident forms of political dissent and scathing criticism of governments. One way to limit its mischief is to narrow the definition; but a more rational and constitutional option would be to scrap the provision altogether.

Questions:

1. What is Indian Penal Code? When was it codified? 

2. Section-124 A of IPC has been associated with India's freedom struggle. Find out how.

3. Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?

4. What is a Law Commission? Who all are the members of this Commission? What are the various roles of this commission?

5. What are various verdicts given by High Courts and the Supreme Court with regards to sedition?

6. Edmund Burke once said "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny"? Comment on this statement giving examples from Indian judicial system.

8 comments:

  1. 1. What is Indian Penal Code? When was it codified?

    It is a statute providing for punishment and penalties for most of the substantial offences in criminal law. It was drafted by Lord Macaulay during 1934-1938. It was passed in 1860 after the end of the Indian War of Independence and after the transfer of Government from the Company to the Crown. However, it was brought into force from 1st January 1862.

    2. Section-124 A of IPC has been associated with India's freedom struggle. Find out how.

    The abovementioned section was originally Section 113 of Macaulay’s draft Penal Code which was not included when IPC was enacted in 1860. It was added to the IPC only in 1870 as Act XXVII of 1870 as Section 124-A.
    The charge of sedition was for the first time applied to Jogendra Chandra Bose, the editor of Bangobasi (newspaper) for criticizing the Age of Consent Bill, 1891. The first major case was Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, where he was slapped with the charges in 1897 for inciting to act against the British Plague Commissioner of Pune, Rand. In 1909, he was again charged for sedition for certain articles published in “Kesari”.
    Even the father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi was prosecuted under charges of sedition for articles published in the Young Indian magazine.

    3. Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?

    The colonial Government had inserted the above provision for the purpose of suppressing any dissent to its regime in India. While the English law did not define sedition, the Indian Penal Code did. This was to combat any revolutionaries who might try to overthrow the Britishers in India.
    However, given the wide application of the sedition law being made presently, it is a huge bottleneck on the freedom of speech and expression of the common man. As with the draconian Section 66-A of the Information and Technology Act, the sedition law has also been applied in ludicrous cases to intimidate persons. Some examples would be, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi arrested under sedition law for putting up banners mocking the Constitution during a rally of Anna Hazare led movement; booking students under sedition law for supporting Pakistan during a cricket match, etc.


    ReplyDelete
  2. 4. What is a Law Commission? Who all are the members of this Commission? What are the various roles of this commission?

    During the drafting of the Constitution, there had been demands for the setting up of a Central Law Commission to recommend revision and updating of the laws prevailing in the country. The Government of India thus established the First Law Commission of Independent India in India with then Attorney General of India, Mr. M.C. Setalvad as the chairman.
    Presently, the twenty-first Law Commission is in function. Its tenure is for three years from 1st September, 2015 to 31st August, 2018. Its members are Dr. Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan (chairman), Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi (member), Shri. P.K. Malhotra (Law Secretary), Dr. G. Narayana Raju (Legislative Secretary), Dr. (Smt.) Pawan Sharma (Secretary to the LAw Commission of India).
    The various roles of the Law Commission are:
    i) Review or repeal of obsolete laws: The Commission identifies the laws which are not needed in the country anymore or which do not fit with the present social, economic or political scenario of the country. It identifies Acts which need amendments. It considers any suggestions made by the Expert Groups in other Ministries/ Departments.
    ii) Law and Poverty: It evaluates the laws which affect the poor and carry out a socio-economic analysis of the same to see how it affects them and also if any changes or any new laws are needed to ameliorate them.
    iii) It works towards expediting the process of hearing of cases and also tries to reduce the costs. Simplification of procedure to help in attainment of justice.
    iv) It examines the laws with respect to the Directive Principles of State Policy and makes suggestions about the ways in which the laws may be amended to achieve this end.
    v) Suggesting laws with a view to promote gender equality.
    vi) Revise the Central Acts so as to remove any difficulties, ambiguities, etc.
    vii) It can refer to the Government any particular suggestions regarding law and judicial administration.

    5. What are various verdicts given by High Courts and the Supreme Court with regards to sedition?

    In Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court had held that Section 124-A imposed a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression of the common man and was held ultra vires the Constitution. In Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, the abovementioned Section was once against struck down as contrary to the freedom of speech and expression present in the Constitution. But it was overruled by the apex Court in the case of Kedarnath v. State of Bihar, where the petitioner had attempted to incite disaffection towards the State through his speech.
    In Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor in 1927, it was held that there must be shown to be an intention of the accused as mentioned in the provision. Later in Hanumanthaiya v. Government of Mysore, the Court held that in deciding whether a speech is sedition, the whole speech must be looked at and not merely isolated patches or a strong word here or there, to catch the drift of the speech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a code which covers all the substantive aspect of the criminal law. It was drafted by the first law commission of India which was established in 1834 under the Government of India Act 1833 which was headed by Lord Macaulay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It has been argued that Indian Penal code was enacted after the Sepoy mutiny to supress conflicts which arises in future. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was charged under with sedition twice. 1897 for speeches that allegedly incited violence and in 1909 for his writings in newspaper against the British rule. M.K.Gandhi was also jailed for six years on charges of sedition for the articles he wrote in one of the journals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Law commission of India is a executive body which is established by an order of the Government of India.
    Membership- Chairman, one permanent member, one member secretary and six part time members.
    Function
    Advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
    recommendations to reform the law where it is necessary.
    with the objective of reforming the law for maximizing justice in society and promoting good governance under the rule of law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 3.Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?
    Ans. Government today acknowledged that the definition of Sedition law is "very wide" and said it is being reviewed by the Law Commission after members in Rajya Sabha demanded that it should be scrapped as it is a colonial legacy and a "relic".
    Home Minister Rajnath Singh agreed for an all-party meeting to discuss the issue after the Law Commission submits its report on the law which has come under focus in the wake of JNU controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 3.Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?
    Ans. Government today acknowledged that the definition of Sedition law is "very wide" and said it is being reviewed by the Law Commission after members in Rajya Sabha demanded that it should be scrapped as it is a colonial legacy and a "relic".
    Home Minister Rajnath Singh agreed for an all-party meeting to discuss the issue after the Law Commission submits its report on the law which has come under focus in the wake of JNU controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 3.Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?
    Ans. Government today acknowledged that the definition of Sedition law is "very wide" and said it is being reviewed by the Law Commission after members in Rajya Sabha demanded that it should be scrapped as it is a colonial legacy and a "relic".
    Home Minister Rajnath Singh agreed for an all-party meeting to discuss the issue after the Law Commission submits its report on the law which has come under focus in the wake of JNU controversy.

    ReplyDelete