Sedition law
NCP chief Sharad Pawar has added his name to the long list of those seeking repeal of the sedition law. The timing of his appeal is significant. Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with the offence of sedition, are to be taken up for final hearing by the Supreme Court next week. Up for introspection would be the top court’s own judgment in the Kedar Nath case in 1962, which upheld Section 124A but attempted to restrict its scope for misuse. Last year, the top court, concerned over the misuse of the colonial-era penal law, had asked the Centre why it was not repealing the provision used by the British to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi, who when charged under the law termed it the ‘prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen’. Yet, 75 years after Independence, Section 124A’s dubious journey continues.
Once charged under the sedition law, it becomes very difficult to avail bail and the trial stretches on for years. Section 124A has always attracted criticism and no government has shown willingness to scrap it. The denouncement is more pronounced now over its use as an instrument to silence dissent and for denying bail to activists and civil society members, languishing in jail for months and branded as traitors. The Chief Justice of India himself has questioned the necessity of a law that suppresses freedoms, is prone to misuse and has a very low conviction rate. A former top court judge, all for allowing free speech so long as it does not exhort somebody to violence, pointed out the duplicity and irrationality of booking those exercising free speech under the stringent sedition law, and not those making hate speeches.
A narrative has been built that the mere accusation of being seditious or charged under the law is enough for a guilty tag. Pawar has noted that provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act are sufficient for protecting national integrity. As the clamour grows for repealing the sedition law, there are voices demanding urgent guidelines such as pre-arrest requirements.
