NEWS  An urgent review of the Kedar Nath judgment is necessary as ‘sedition’ violates the basic right of speech and expression.

CONTEXT

• Recently in the Vinod Dua’s case (2021), the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the law of sedition laid down in Kedar Nath Singh and directed governments to adhere to it.

BACKGROUND

• Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962)

• • In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of sedition as defined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar.
  • It upheld the constitutionality of sedition, but limited its application to only those writings or speeches which incite people to violence against the Government
  • Hence, as per this judgment, unless speeches or writings tend to cause violence or disorder, there is no sedition.

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CONTRADICTORY TO JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS

• Contrary to the Supreme Court’s assertion in the Kedar Nath case, governments of all the time have charged citizens of all ages with sedition for merely criticising the authorities.
• The Lakshadweep case is the latest example, in which the Sedition case has been filed against Lakshadweep filmmaker for calling the Governor of the Union Territory a ‘bio-weapon’.

WHERE DOES THE PROBLEM LIES?

The problem actually lies in the fact that the law of sedition was not struck down by the Supreme Court in 1962 as unconstitutional.

• There was every justification for doing that because sedition, as defined in Section 124A of the IPC:

Violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution:

• Sedition, as defined in Section 124A of the IPC, clearly violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which confers the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression, the most valuable right of free citizens of a free country.

Not a reasonable restriction:

• The section does not get protection under Article 19(2) on the ground of reasonable restriction.
  • Initially the word sedition was included in the draft of Article 19 by the Constituent Assembly, but later it was deleted when the final adoption of the article 19 was done.
  • It clearly shows that the Constitution makers did not consider sedition as a reasonable restriction.
  • However, the Supreme Court interpreted the words ‘in the interest of public order’ used in Article 19(2) and held that the offence of sedition arises when seditious utterances can lead to disorder or violence.
• Hence, the act of reading down Section 124A by the Supreme court, brought it clearly under Article 19(2) and saved the law of sedition. Otherwise, sedition would have had to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Historical underpinnings:

• • This law was enacted by the British colonial government in 1870 with the sole object of suppressing all voices of Indians critical of the government.
  • The history of this most draconian law during colonial rule, like in the Bangobasi case in 1891, Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case in 1897 and 1908 and Mahatma Gandhi’s case in 1922, shows that-

• incitement to violence or rebellion is not a necessary part of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC and a mere comment which the authorities think has the potential to cause disaffection towards the government is seditious and the person can be arrested and put on trial.

CONCLUSION

• • The Kedar Nath judgment makes it possible for the law enforcement machinery to easily take away the fundamental right of citizens.

• In a democracy, people have the inalienable right to change the government they do not like.

• • People will display disaffection towards a government which has failed them.
  • The law of sedition which penalises them for hating a government which does not serve them cannot exist because it violates Article 19(1)(a) and is not protected by Article 19(2).
• Therefore, an urgent review of the Kedar Nath judgement by a larger Bench has become necessary.

Reference:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-law-of-sedition-is-unconstitutional/article35027081.ece