The Supreme Court of India suspends sedition offences
The latest decision by India’s highest court puts the spotlight on a section of the penal code that dates back to the colonial administration, a rule widely used in recent years by Prime Minister Modi and state governments to suppress dissent. For Fr Prakash, this is an important step, but it is still a “provisional order”; instead, he wants to see the rule’s “total [. . .] repeal”.
Ahmedabad (AsiaNews) – May 11, 2022 was a historic day for the Indian constitution and “we the people”. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court suspended Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), better known as the sedition law.
The repressive and regressive measure is archaic and obsolete, and blatantly violates the freedoms guaranteed to every citizen by the constitution.
The article in question reads: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
Sedition laws were enacted in 17th century England, when parliament believed that only pro-government views should be allowed, since it deemed negative opinions as harmful.
In the 19th century, the British administration in India was wary of movements that were emerging to challenge colonial rule. In 1870, it felt the need for a separate section to deal with sedition; an amendment proposed by Sir James Stephen was inserted as Section 124A of the IPC. Now finally, the Supreme Court in New Delhi put the rule on hold.
In a three-page order, the Supreme Court states, “This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused.”
It goes on to say: “We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.”
Why is this ruling so important? On 2 February 2021, Article 14, the website of an advocacy group that focuses on “threats to and failures of justice and deficiencies in the legal system”, published a study that found that 65 per cent of the approximately 11,000 people charged with sedition since 2010 were accused after Prime Minister Modi took office in 2014.
People charged with sedition include opposition politicians, students, journalists, authors and academics. About 96 per cent of sedition cases filed against 405 Indians for criticising politicians and governments were registered after 2014, with 149 accused of making “critical” and/or “derogatory” remarks against Modi and 144 against Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, another well-known Hindu nationalist.
The rise in sedition cases is particularly correlated with protest movements, such as those that broke out against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 or after the rape of a Dalit teenager in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.
The data are startlingly clear. It shows that the Indian government has become vindictive and has used the sedition legislation and other draconian laws very selectively to crush dissent and stifle the voices of anyone who tries to take a stand against it or criticise its anti-people policies.
As a result of this kind of legislation, thousands of people are still languishing in jail.
In an important statement that welcomes the Supreme Court’s order, the Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) notes that Fr Stan Swamy, the Jesuit from Jharkhand who died in prison a year ago after almost nine months of detention, was the victim of “draconian laws such as sedition and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).”
What is more, as “Much as the PUCL welcomes this order of the Supreme Court, it is also constrained to point out that in spite of this order, a larger number of human rights activists, journalists, Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis and students will continue to languish in jail for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.”
In the next two months, the Supreme Court's main legal challenge will be to determine whether a 1962 ruling in Kedar Nath Singh v. Union of India was decided correctly. In that case, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, asserting that speech that is likely to disrupt public order must be considered an act of sedition.
A seven-judge panel will have to assess whether that ruling was correct and whether a law against sedition can be considered an exception to free speech.
In 1908, when Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was tried for sedition by the Bombay High Court, he boldly said: “Swaraj (self-rule) is my birth right and I shall have it.”
Today it is necessary to be painfully aware that the provisional order of the Supreme Court expresses an orientation but is yet not conclusive. It's just a “pause”.
For this reason, the Indian people must come out into the open and demand the total, immediate and unconditional repeal of this draconian law. Joining Tilak, it must say in unison: "Swaraj is my birth right, and I shall have it."
* Jesuit, human rights activist
.png)
01/07/2022 17:12
