Gandhiji described “sedition” as the prince of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). No fundamental right in our Constitution is
absolute. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) can
be reasonably restricted on the grounds specified in Article 19(2). It is
significant that during the debates in the Constituent Assembly, the founding
fathers, in view of their bitter experience of the application of the sedition
law by the British colonial regime, deliberately omitted “sedition” as one of
the permissible grounds of restriction under Article 19(2) on freedom of speech
and expression. However, sedition as a criminal offence remains in the IPC
under Section 124A and provides for inter alia sentence of life imprisonment
and fine upon conviction.
Section 124A was challenged in the Supreme
Court as unconstitutional. In its celebrated judgment in the case of Kedarnath
vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court explained the scope of sedition law. It
ruled that “vigorous(strong,जोरदार) words in writing and very strong criticism of measures
of government or acts of public officials, would be outside the scope of Section
124A”. The Supreme Court further observed: “A citizen has a right to say or
write whatever he likes about the government, or its measures, by way of
criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence
against the government established by law, or with the intention of creating
public disorder.” The Supreme Court did not approve of the Privy Council’s
judgments according to which any speech or writing which evinced(revealed,जताना)
disloyalty or ill feelings towards the government could be regarded as
sedition. Many freedom fighters were prosecuted and punished for sedition by
the British colonial regime.
The Supreme Court preferred the judgment of
the Federal Court delivered by distinguished chief justice, Maurice Gwyer, who
ruled that sedition law is not to be invoked “to minister to the wounded vanity
of government. The acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder
or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or
tendency”. The Supreme Court made the following significant observation: “It is
only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious(harmful,नुकसानदायक) tendency or intention of
creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in
to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the
section in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual
fundamental rights and the interest of public order. It is also well settled
that in interpreting an enactment the court should have regard not merely to the
literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the
antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to
suppress.”
×
The Supreme Court limited the application
of Section 124A to acts involving incitement to violence, which is the
essential ingredient of the offence of sedition. That is our law, that is how
124A was interpreted and upheld as constitutional by a Constitution Bench.
Therefore the question whether certain speech or acts constitute sedition are
questions of fact which have to be determined by a court of law keeping in mind
the principles enunciated(pronounced,उच्चारित)
by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath. Subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court
have reaffirmed the principles laid down in Kedarnath.
Recently sedition law has been invoked
against Amnesty International on the ground that certain slogans insulting to
India were uttered(say,बोलना) at its recent event in Bengaluru. If that be so, it is
certainly deplorable and may expose Amnesty to civil and criminal proceedings.
One can certainly criticise and condemn the alleged anti-India slogans. But
mere utterance of slogans by itself does not constitute sedition unless there
is exhortation to overthrow the government of the day by recourse to violence,
which is the prerequisite(condition,शर्त) for invoking the sedition section. Surely our country is
strong and mature enough to take in its stride(progress,प्रगति) alleged insulting
slogans without rushing to invoke the law of sedition.
It is opined by some that Section 124
should be deleted. In my view Section 124A “sedition” as interpreted by the
Supreme Court is necessary. There may be cases where Section 124A can be
legitimately invoked. Therefore, retain the section but strike down actions not
in conformity with the section.
Take the recent case of Divya Spandana
alias Ramya, who in response to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s statement
that Pakistan is hell, recounted her recent experience on her visit to
Islamabad and stated that Pakistan is not hell and people there are like us —
hospitable and friendly. I have visited Pakistan on more than one occasion and
found Pakistani people to be hospitable. If I express my opinion, am I in
breach of Section 124A of the IPC? The purported justification followed for
booking Ramya under Section 124A is that her statement is an insult to people
of India and therefore she should leave India and go to Pakistan. The degree of
intolerance exhibited is appalling(terrible,भयानक). Section 124A is not to
be used as an instrument to muzzle unpalatable(tough,कड़ा) views. It is high time
that appropriate penalties are imposed on those, including lawyers, who invoke
Section 124A wantonly(stupidity,बेहूदगी) and cause pain and harassment to those who honestly
express their opinion and who are intimidated(threaten,धमकाया हुआ) by invocation of Section
124A. If this trend is not arrested, it would lead to self-censorship, a
regrettable phenomenon.
One would expect judicial officers not to
entertain manifestly ill-founded complaints. It is the need of the hour to
contain the forces of bigotry(zealotry,कट्टरता)
and intolerance which pose a grave threat to our democratic secular republic.
Ramya deserves to be congratulated for not yielding to intimidation and not
saying sorry for expressing her honest views in a peaceful manner. It would be
ridiculous to construe Ramya’s views as seditious.
courtesy:indian express
No comments:
Post a Comment