SC on sedition: A welcome step
It is now up to the Centre to finish its review of the law, but the SC has made its position clear
In a historic order on Wednesday, the Supreme Court (SC) hit pause on the contentious Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of sedition, until review by the Centre of the sweeping provision, controversial for its indiscriminate use by governments across the land and ideological spectrum against dissenting voices and political opponents. The SC passed three important directions: One, it said it will “hope and expect” governments to not register first information reports (FIRs), continue investigation, or take coercive measures under the law. Two, it allowed affected parties in fresh cases to approach courts for relief and asked the courts to consider pleas based on the SC’s order and the stance taken by the government, which earlier this week acknowledged concerns about misuse and the need to safeguard civil liberties. Three, it asked all pending trials, appeals and proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance. In effect, the offence of sedition has been put on hold, until the next date of hearing in July.
This is a welcome decision, not only because sedition represented the most egregious of India’s colonial baggage but also because of the thousands of citizens who battled its stringent provisions for an ever-expanding array of offences (which included cheering for a particular team in a cricket match, liking social media posts, criticising a politician on social media, condemning a crime, “defaming” the administration, and writing an article). Data shows that while sedition cases ballooned, the conviction rates often languished in single digits, underlining how the provision had become a tool of intimidation and complaints were not grounded in evidence, but to ensure jail time. It is possibly due to such misuse that many countries have repealed the law, including in 2009 in the United Kingdom. It is also due to similar concerns that the Constituent Assembly voted to remove the word “sedition” from the draft Constitution in 1948, noting that a line should be drawn between criticism of the government and incitement to overthrow the State.
It is now up to the Centre to finish its review of the law, but the SC, and Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, have made their position clear. Care will need to be taken that the SC’s directives filter down to district magistrates and police officers, so that a repeat of the Section 66A fiasco — where police continued to file cases under the controversial Information Technology Act provision after the SC had scrapped it — can be avoided. It also remains to be seen whether similarly worded punitive provisions make a comeback in a new law. But for now, the SC has taken a momentous step in upholding civil liberties.