Law Commission's Recommendations Make Sedition Law More Prone To Abuse : Senior Lawyers

The law of sedition has always been controversial - with governments of all shades and hues generously employing the colonial-era law to clamp down on dissent. The application of this law has become absurdly frightening over the years with journalists, activists, cartoonists, students and even lay persons facing the brunt for being critical of the government. This is hardly a secret. Then, why is it back in the news now? That is because, in an unexpected development, the Law Commission of India, instead of advocating for the complete repeal or, at least, a redefinition of the law of sedition, has recommended for it to be retained on the statute book, with a greatly enhanced scope and punishment. Historic opportunity to right a wrong has been missed by Law Commission: Rebecca John “A historic opportunity to right a wrong has been missed,” said Senior Advocate Rebecca John in conversation with Live Law about the 279th report of the Law Commission on the ‘Usage of the Law of Sedition’. “The Supreme Court, through various judgements since independence, has expressed its discomfort with the provision and has added multiple caveats for its use. This was the right time…A certain crescendo had been reached. The Supreme Court had taken up the provision and expressed a prima facie view that it needed reconsideration. After all of that, and after multiple judicial pronouncements, for the Law Commission to recommend not only the retention of the sedition law, but its retention with enhanced punishment, is nothing but a case of lost opportunity. It is deeply disappointing. When the UAPA exists and is used to counter terrorist activities, who is Section 124A to be used against? Which constituency, then, will be burdened with this section when a separate counter-terror legislation exists? Obviously people who speak their mind and dissent – the voices the government wishes to silence.” About the introduction of the fourth explanation, the senior counsel said, “This is incomprehensible. They are trying to introduce a new concept called ‘tendency’ and they have attempted – rather clumsily – to define it. Which police officer is going to understand this? This makes it more vague and broad, and will only lead to more misuse. The distinction they seek to draw between the police and the State is farcical. Saying that there is no misuse on the end of the State is nothing but splitting hairs, given that the enforcing agency of the government is the police.” “The law must evolve,” she concluded, “The colonial powers might have founds it uses in having a carrot-and-stick provision to keep the colonised under check. But there is no need for a proud, independent democracy to have a provision of this kind, to be used against its own citizens. If there is a gross breach of law in the form of terrorism or money laundering, there are acts for these. What is the point of multiplying offences, and weaponising the laws against citizens?” Sedition law reinforces a system of rulers by divine rights, liable to be struck down: Sanjay Hegde Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde questioned the relevance of sedition law – an anachronistic holdover from our colonial past – in a modern democracy like ours, when asked about the commission’s report. “The essential question of whether sedition law has any place in a modern democracy has not been addressed in this report,” the senior counsel told us, “This law is from a time when there were kings and subjects, and not a republic and citizens. These kings had the divine right to rule, and any rebellion against the king was thought to be a rebellion against God.” The senior counsel then recalled a famous verse from William Shakespeare’s Richard II – “Not all the water in the rough rude sea, can wash the balm off from an anointed king; the breath of worldly men cannot depose the deputy elected by the Lord.” “This was the understanding of kingship. You could not rebel against the king who was there for life. But, we currently live in a democratic setup where the rulers have a lease on power for five years subject to good behaviour. Dissent, as someone famously said, is a safety valve of democracy. Sedition law is overbroad and can be used against all kinds of dissenters, besides reinforcing a system of rulers by divine rights. The targeted constituency of this provision comprises people who raise their voices for public causes and who provide the moral support for genuine discontent.” “From my understanding of the report, a broad sense of the ultimate recommendation was arrived at first and then the logic was supplied to support it. They have basically back-calculated it. They have gone beyond Kedar Nath Singh, ignoring the Balwant Singh ruling. No meaningful safeguard has been introduced either. I believe if the recommendations are accepted, they would be struck down by the court,” the senior counsel concluded. ...

Law Commission's Recommendations Make Sedition Law More Prone To Abuse : Senior Lawyers

Awstika Das

Tags