Sedition refers to the writing or uttering of words or doing acts intended to bring the state into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the established government.Sedition encompasses all those practices which aim at arising hatred, contempt, or disaffection, including discontent, stirring up opposition, inciting rebellion, creating public disturbance, promoting disloyalty and public disorder against the sovereign or the government.

The British Government in order to maintain the continuity of rule in India enacted a number of laws to restrain public to rebel against the British rule. The offence of sedition was amongst these offences. Sedition law in India, like most of the criminal law in India, is a reflection of the Victorian legacy left behind by the British and is indicative of the colonial mind set of British. It was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code in 1870and was repeatedly used to oppress the Indian freedom fighters and the national struggle for freedom before independence.

The Indian Penal Code has section 124A which makes sedition a criminal offence.Section 124A of the I.P.C contains two parts: the first part defines the offence of sedition and the second part prescribes the punishment for the said offence. The section penalises any person who, by spoken or written words or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law of India, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.Hence, Section 124-A aims at preventing and punishing the exciting of disaffection towards government; the purpose of which obviously would be to bring about a downfall of government.

Whether or not the law of sedition, as it stands, is violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution has been debatable issue ever since the constitution came into force.The right to freedom of speech and expression is considered to be indispensable for the preservation of a democratic society wherein the citizens are active participants in the political affairs and form the foundation of such a society.In this republic, the citizen is supreme and the government is an organisation through which citizens exercise their supremacy through the executive powers which vest in the President and the Governors. Therefore, the right to criticise government and to call government to account is far superior to the right of government to protect itself against sedition. The words ‘treason’ and ‘sedition’ have to be used with great care and caution in a democracy.

The constitutional validity of sedition is in direct relation with the freedom of speech and expression, as it is one of the most valuable rights provided under the constitution unless justified under clause (2) of article 19. So, the main issuethat arose was whether ‘sedition’ is used as an exception under article 19(2).Finally, in 1962, inKedarNath v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court dealt with the constitutionality of section 124A of the I.P.C.The matter was heard by thefive-judge bench headed by justice B.P. Sinha CJ,the Supreme Court while ascertaining the constitutionality of the section 124A, referred to the phrases ‘security of state’ and ‘public order’ found under clause (2) of article 19 of the constitution. Also, the court striked out a balance between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public order or security of the state.

So, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the section but narrowed the meaning, application and scope of the section to cover only those activities which intend or tend to create disorder or disturb public peace by resorting to violence.By limiting the scope and application of section 124A of the I.P.C., the court brought the section in conformity with the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

Inspite of the limited construction adopted by the Supreme Court, section 124A of the I.P.C. has continued to be misused by successive governments to stifle legitimate criticism which have, thereby encroached upon the right to freedom of speech and expression of citizens.

ARUSHI SRALECH