On Thursday, the Supreme Court said that the police misuses the sedition law to frame people who speak against the government.
An SC bench led by CJI N V Ramana described the British-era sedition law as “colonial”. “The sedition law is a colonial law. Do we still need the law in our country after 75 years of Independence,” Chief Justice NV Ramana questioned.
“Sedition provision Section 124A of IPC is a colonial-era which was used to silence dissent or protest against British and was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Does the government want to retain it after 75 years of independence,” the bench said.
The SC said “like 66A of I-T Act, quashed before it was abused to arrest thousands for airing their views, sedition law is misused by police to fix persons who speak against the government. There is no accountability for slapping sedition charge”.
The court compared the law to a saw in the hands of a carpenter and said that it is a serious threat to the functioning of institutions and holds “enormous power” for misuse with no accountability for the executive.
“There is enormous misuse. The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself. That is the effect of this law,” the court said.
The court asked why the government while taking a number of dated laws off the statute book was not looking into this law.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, during arguments, suggested that the law be retained with “guidelines”. To which, the Chief Justice replied, “If some party does not want to hear the voice of other party, they may use this law and implicate others and it is a serious question for individuals.”
“If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124 A… People are scared.”
The petition, filed by major-general S G Vombatkere (Retd) submitted that Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of sedition, is wholly unconstitutional and should be “unequivocally and unambiguously struck down”.
“The petitioner contends that a statute criminalising expression based on unconstitutionally vague definitions of ‘disaffection towards Government’ etc. is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and causes constitutionally impermissible ‘Chilling Effect’ on speech”, the plea said.
The court said that it would examine the validity of the sedition law and asked the Centre to respond to a former army officer’s petition that says the law causes a “chilling effect” on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression.
“The dispute is it is a colonial law… the very same law was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi and to suppress the freedom movement. Is the law still necessary in the statute book in our country after 75 years of Independence?”
The court has also said that several petitions have challenged the sedition law and all will be heard together. “Our concern is the misuse of the law and no accountability of the executive,” the Chief Justice told Attorney General Venugopal.
“We are not blaming any state or government, but look at how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used, how many unfortunate people have suffered and there is no accountability for this…”
He also said there was “minimal conviction or very low rate of conviction” in the history of the sedition law.