It is an oft-repeated statement that the Supreme Court of
India is Supreme, not because it is infallible but because it is final.
While hearing the constitutionality of section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code,
which relates to the offence of sedition, the Supreme Court has put its
operation in abeyance till it is reconsidered by the government of India to
which it has agreed. With all humility and respect, I feel that this interim
order of the Supreme Court is unjustified. There are no two opinions that civil liberties are to be balanced with the
security of the state. The Union Home Secretary has already stated on oath that
no FIR involving sedition would be registered until an officer of at least SP
rank records in writing his/her satisfaction.
After all, how are you
going to deal with such people who openly shout slogans and provoke the
public to rise in revolt against India till its Barbadi (ruination)? Or
'Bharat tere tukde honge hazar' (India will splinter into thousand pieces) or
‘we must cut the chicken neck of India so that the supplies to the north-east
are stopped and it can be separated from the rest of the country? Can
these be allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression under Article
19? What justification can be given to those who say that the Bombay blast was
the handiwork of Indian forces, that too without even an iota of proof or
evidence? Is there any doubt about the malafide intentions of these persons who
make such irresponsible statements?
Sedition law is more than 150 years
old as this section was included in the IPC in 1890 and like any other law, it
must also be changed to keep pace with times but not without visualising the
challenges that may arise. Obliterating any law from the statute on the ground
of it being of the colonial era is no plausible reason. By that logic,
the bulk of IPC, CrPC and CPC is of the colonial era, can they also be
done away with? When the offence of
the sedition was
introduced, the punishment prescribed was transportation for life which was
amended to life imprisonment in 1955. In the pre-Independence era, this law was
used to stifle political dissent with cases lodged against Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
Annie Besant, Maulana Azad, Mahatma Gandhi and many others. The legacy of this
law in India comes from England. But citing its chilling effect on freedom of
speech and expression, it was repealed by the United Kingdom in 2009. The
Constituent Assembly debated this issue in great detail. Some considered it a
restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech, but the majority did
not subscribe to this view
After Independence, a
five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of 124 A in
Kedar Nath Singh’s case, but it left some ambiguity between the State and the
Government. In fact, it is very cogent reasoning that criticism of the
government cannot be labelled sedition. There is a big difference between
sedition and treason, while treason is justified, sedition is
indefensible. There is no doubt that sedition law is draconian but
removing it lock, stock and barrel from the statute book will help only those
who have anathema for the unity and integrity of the country.
In the Kedar Nath Singh judgment, the Supreme
Court had issued certain guidelines underlining when critical speech cannot be
qualified as sedition. Therefore, the need is to stop the misuse of law, which
is found in the case of many other laws. To top it all, the judicial system
must keep a smart vigil on false cases by way of early relief and punishment to
those who misuse the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment