Towards a solution?

The Central Government and the Supreme Court of India appear to be coming on the same page on the discourse around sedition law. The SC is likely to grant the Centre three-four months’ time for reconsideration of the law but, before that, it has asked the government to “make its stand clear” by Wednesday. The court sounded apprehensive about the pending and future cases, which are prone to misuse, during the time lapse created by reconsideration period. The ball was actually set rolling by the Supreme Court last year when CJI NV Ramana, after hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of the colonial era law, raised serious questions regarding its continuance. The Central government, in a recent affidavit, had decided to re-consider the law in view of “protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving meaning to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country” through a competent forum. Government’s stand came as a radical shift to the Centre’s response on Saturday when it said there was no need to re-examine the law — citing that a three-judge bench cannot review the law as it was already justified by a five-bench constitution bench in 1962. The Supreme Court had back then ruled that the scope of freedom of speech and expression can be guaranteed only as long as it doesn’t “incite people to violence against the government established by law” or is not exercised “with the intention of creating public disorder”. The core debate around sedition has been centered on balancing between free speech and state privilege ever since independence. Even while drafting of the Indian Constitution, there was a rigorous debate in the Constituent Assembly regarding the continuance of the law and decision was taken in favor of it. Further, in the landmark Kedar Nath Singh v/s State of Bihar case, the validity of Section 124A was upheld. And very recently, the 2018 Law Commission Report argued for invoking the sedition law only in the situation where the intent is to disrupt public order or to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means. The report argued that “in a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection towards their country in their own way”. The report essentially banked upon constructive criticism of the government. But it didn’t recommend scrapping the law. In sum total, all the efforts made to date appear to be seeking a somewhat right balance. Can the coincidence of Supreme Court’s and Centre’s view — both agreeing to reconsider the law as India crosses 75 years of its independence — lead to a more stable framework? That remains to be answered by time. Amid the fast-evolving socio-political and cultural dimensions of society, the challenge before leading government institutions will be to figure out the appropriate route — the balance can come either through outright scrapping of law and replacing it with an appropriate legislation, which will be a radically transformative move; or to make modifications in the existing law. The United Kingdom — where the roots of the sedition law can be traced — had scrapped the law a decade ago in 2010. In the Indian Parliament also, several attempts have been made to date but none could succeed — perhaps because of the complexities involved in the matter or the government’s unwillingness to part ways with a powerful tool that it has at its disposal. While free speech and expression have emerged as the most talked-about aspects of democracy, Constitutional entitlements of the State remain a latent counterbalancing force behind the practical functioning of a democratic set-up. Notably, sedition is categorised under “offences against the state” of Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code. Now coming back to the moot question of the balancing aspect, the present state of operations of the sedition law should serve as the guiding principle for future course of action. As per the data by National Crime Records Bureau, in 2020, 73 cases of sedition were filed but no one was convicted. The situation was almost similar in the preceding years. In fact, the abysmal level of conviction was flagged by CJI Ramana as well. From Disha Ravi to Bhima Koregaon case, the inconsistencies in the sedition law — ranging from prolonged detention without trial to low conviction rate — have come to public notice. The Central government and Supreme Court would do well to carry out a detailed qualitative assessment of the efficacy of sedition law, and replace it with another law or bring in radical changes therein accordingly. The time perhaps has come when a stable solution of the sedition conundrum has to be found out.