Sedition law may not witness a sea change
IT would be quite naïve to believe that the odious Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC has been thrown into the dustbin of history, and that is the end of the story. The Supreme Court was hearing the case and going by the precedent set in the court’s verdict in the 2021 Vinod Dua case, it would have considerably modified many of the conditions of the sedition law without quashing it. The government did not accept that Section 124A was either egregious or a mere evolutionary vestige of past politics. The government has never professed itself to be liberal when it came to the issue of the State and its powers. The Union Home Ministry had referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s views favouring human rights and civil liberties, but that did not allow the government to say that it plans to do away with the sedition law.
What we have seen in the Section 124A political and legal drama is that the govt has pre-empted the court from doing what it wanted to do, and it has given a vague suggestion in its affidavit as to how it wants to deal with it — review the issue at an appropriate forum. The court’s expectation that the govt will not file cases under Section 124A or pursue investigation under it anymore is to be treated as an indirect directive. But the govt is free to pursue cases under other laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. So, it’s a grey area in many ways.
It would have been better if the Supreme Court had arrived at its own view in the matter, and the government did what it wanted to do. But now, the issue has become tangled. The law is in a state of suspension. It has not gone. It is like the fabled sword of Damocles. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had given a hint of the government’s thinking that it had to keep in mind the security of the State and balance it against the demands of civil liberties. So, if the government were to dump Section 124A as a colonial-era law, it would replace it with its own version of what it is to turn against the State. And it must be conceded, that whatever the political hue of the party in power, centrist like that of the Congress or right-wing like that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it becomes incumbent to keep in place a law that defends the existence of the State and deals with individuals and groups that challenge the existence of the State. We have not yet reached the nirvanic state of politics when it takes up cudgels against the State, short of overthrowing it.
What we have witnessed in the Section 124A political and legal drama is that the government has pre-empted the court from doing what it wanted to do, and it has given a vague suggestion in its affidavit as to how it wants to deal with it: review the issue at an appropriate forum. The court’s expectation that the government will not file cases under Section 124A, or pursue investigation under it anymore as the law is under review is to be treated as an indirect directive. But the government is free to pursue cases under other laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). So, it is a grey area in many ways. How long will the government take to review Section 124A at the appropriate forum? Will it come up during the Monsoon Session of Parliament in July? The court will resume hearing in the case in July. Perhaps by then, the government will be able to tell the court what the plan of action is.
When hearings began in the case, Attorney General KK Venugopal had rightly argued that in the Kedarnath Singh case, the court has taken the right position and there is no need to review it. What he meant was that enough protection was provided for liberties while retaining the sedition provisions. Of course, the court would have perhaps expanded the protections for liberty and diluted further Section 124A. It was quite unlikely that it would have quashed the section completely.
The political aspect of Section 124A is the most interesting issue. So, Modi might say that he believes in human rights and civil liberties, though he did not give this impression when he spoke at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) anniversary celebrations in October last year, emphasising duties over rights.
It is then to be expected from the government that it will formulate Section 124A in an ‘appropriate’ language citing the threat of terrorism to the existence of the Indian State, and therefore a threat to the Indian nation and people. The government has been appropriating old ideas, and one of the ways of doing it is to make new laws based on old principles. It would not be right to blame the powers that be for believing in a mailed-fist State because it is part of their anti-libertarian and anti-individualist political ideology. The BJP believes in the legitimacy and glory of the collective and not that of the individual, and it believes that the State is the expression of the will of the people.
