10/4/2016 TehelkaIndia'sIndependentWeeklyNewsMagazine

4OCTOBER2016TUESDAY TEHELKA.COM TEHELKAHINDI.COM CRITICALFUTURES.ORG

-52% -53% -67%

299 1,299 399 629 999 99

Searchforarchivedstorieshere...

Searchhere...

Print EmailtoFriend | FromTehelkaMagazine,Vol8,Issue17,Dated30Apr2011

OPINION SEDITION ADVERT ISEMENT

Nota21stcenturylaw
Abuseaside,seditionisaninvalidlawbyinternationalstandards

MargaretStride
NewDelhi

MUCHHASbeensaidabouttheabuseofthelawofsedition.ThegrantingofbailbytheSupremeCourttohuman
rightsactivistBinayakSenhasfurtherstokedthedebate.Patentmisuse,abuseandmisapplicationaside,sedition
SKULLLCANDY
isbadlawitinfringesupontheConstitutionalrightofeverycitizentofreedomofexpression. INKD2.0INEAR
Rs.1,099.00
Related Freedomofexpressionisnotabsolute
(details+delivery)
other laws can limit it, but in order for
NationoutragedbyBinayakSenverdict these to be legitimate they must be
TheDoctor,TheState,AndASinisterCase reasonable restrictions, which protect
FinalStatementofBinayakSen other important interests such as State
securityandpublicorder.Inlightofthe
AllNewKindleEreaderWhite,6"... developmentsininternationallaw,there
4,999 BuyNow is a need to reexamine the law now,
amazon nearly 50 years after the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in 1962 SKULLCANDYINKD
held Section 124A (the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code) constitutional. The offence of sedition cannot 2.0INEARWITH
meetthoseinternationalstandardsthatarerequiredforanylaw,whichlimitsfreedomofexpression.Ananalysisof Rs.1,049.00
thereasoningemployedbytheSupremeCourtin1962willshowwhyitisnotapplicabletoday. (details+delivery)

In1962,inthecaseofKedarNathSinghvstheStateofBihar,theSupremeCourtdecidedonthescopeofSection
124Aandnarroweditsambitholdingonlythosemattersthathadtheintentionortendencytoincitepublicdisorder
orviolencewouldbemadepenalbythesection.Thecourtrejectedtheinterpretationsofearlycasesandthatof
the Privy Council in 1944, which brought far more acts within the section and made it easy for the colonial
governmenttoclassanycriticismoftheStateseditious.TheSupremeCourtendorsedstricterinterpretationgiven
tothesectionbytheFederalCourtin1942.

SKULLCANDY
SCS2RFDA074
Rs.899.00
(details+delivery)

ADVERT ISEMENT

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op300411Not21st.asp 1/3
10/4/2016 TehelkaIndia'sIndependentWeeklyNewsMagazine

OnflimsygroundRightsactivistBinayakSenbeingtakenawaytojailafterhewaschargedwithsedition
Photo:ShailendraPandey

Thatbringsustothequestion:Whatisseditionin2011?Therearetwoscenarioswhereapersoncouldbeguilty
of sedition. One, where he makes a speech or publishes a pamphlet that actually results in violence or public
disorder.Two,thewordsoractsofapersondonotactuallyresultinanyviolenceorpublicdisorderhowever,the
policeandthecourtfeelthatthewordsoractshadthistendency,orhehadthesubjectiveintentiontocause
thismischief.Bothpersonsareguiltyofsedition.

India is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This international treaty provides that
everyoneshallhavetherighttofreedomofexpression.Again,thisrightisnotabsolute,andmayberestricted.
Internationallawsetsoutthreerequirementsthatneedtobemetforrestrictionstobepermissible:(a)theymust
beprovidedforbylaw(b)theymustbenecessaryand(c)theymustprotectrespectoftherightsorreputationsof
others, be it for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. The United
NationsSpecialRapporteurinhis2010annualreportcommentedonthefrequentphenomenonofnationsusing
lawsaspoliticaltoolslimitingfreedomofexpressionarbitrarilyinordertosilencedissentorcriticism.TheUNhas
developedguidelinestoensurethatanyrestrictionsconformtothesethreecriteria.IndiaisonesuchStateandthe
lawofseditioninIndiafallsfouloftheserequirements.

In the aforementioned second scenario, the crime of sedition is too vaguely defined to be comprehensible to
ordinary people. Seditious intention and tendency are entirely subjective terms. These vague provisions are
susceptibletowideinterpretationbyboththeauthoritiesandthosesubjecttothelaw.Ifsomeonespeaksatarally,
and his words fail to excite any violence or disorder, the authorities still have a wide measure of discretion in
assessing whether his words had a seditious intention or tendency. Vague provisions also fail to provide
sufficientnoticeofexactlywhatconductisprohibited.ClarityofSection124A,therefore,isofparticularimportance,
given the potential penalty of life imprisonment. In instances where the conduct falls short of actually causing
violence or public disorder, sedition falls short of the international standard of legality. On the other hand, where
thereisnothingvague,therequirementsofactualviolenceandpublicdisordermakewhatisprohibitedveryclear.
Here,124Afailstomeettheinternationallawrequirementofnecessity.

Necessity entails that restrictions on freedom of expression are not overbroad

Seditionisnotnecessary.Allacts andareproportionate.Ifarestrictionisnecessary,itisentailedthatbutforthe
itseekstopunisharecoveredby
otherpenalsections
restriction, the undesirable social or criminal conduct would not be prohibited.
Hence, if a person causes violence and public disorder, he would
simultaneouslybeliableforoffencesundervariousotherlegislativeprovisions.
Indiascriminallawsufficientlycoversthefieldwhenanactioncreatesviolenceorpublicdisorder.Thelawalready
criminalises incitement to violence and abetting an offence. Public mischief and waging war against the State
aresufficientlyprovidedforinthepenalcode.VariousoffencesundertheUnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Actand
the Public Safety Act, in addition to individual State security legislation, would sufficiently punish anyone who
caused disorder or violence. Therefore, sedition is not necessary, since all overt acts it seeks to punish are
covered by other penal sections anyway. Perhaps the biggest critique of Section 124A is that it represents a
disproportionatelyseriousinterferencewithdemocraticdebate.Anybenefititmaybringtoprotectingpublicorder
is outweighed by the harm done to freedom of expression in its most important guise as an underpinning of
democracy.

Similar arguments have led to the repeal of sedition laws in democracies around the world. In 2001, 2007 and
2009Ghana,NewZealandandtheUKrespectivelyrepealedtheirseditionlaws.ReformcommissionsinAustralia,
CanadaandIrelandhaverecommendedtheabolitionofexistingseditionoffences.Theyareundesirableinlightof
theirpoliticalnatureandhistory,andinappropriateinmodernliberaldemocracies,whereitisacceptedthatitisa
fundamental right of citizens to criticise and challenge government structures and processes. In 2010, the
Ugandan Constitutional Court declared the offence of sedition unconstitutional. Similarly, the Nigerian Federal
Court has held sedition laws unconstitutional. A major factor in the recommendations for repeal in these
democratic countries was the strong association between sedition laws and politically motivated prosecutions. In
India, sedition has a similar association, it has long been used by colonialists as a tool in the suppression of
nationalism.TheimportanceoffreedomofexpressionhasbeenrecognisedtheworldoverandinIndiain2010,
theSupremeCourtexpressedthatchangethroughfreespeechisbasictoourdemocracy,andtopreventchange
throughcriticismistopetrifytheorgansofdemocraticgovernment.

In1962,theSupremeCourtheldthattherewasnodoubtthatSection124AviolatedArticle19(1)(a).However,the
courtheldthatsedition,sonewlydefined,wasareasonablerestrictionasitprotectedtheinterestsofpublicorder
andStatesecurity.InkeepingwiththeworldwidetrendeventheUKhasrepealedseditionlawsthetimehas
comeforreassessment.

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op300411Not21st.asp 2/3
10/4/2016 TehelkaIndia'sIndependentWeeklyNewsMagazine
THEISSUE of vagueness did not come up in 1962. Furthermore, the idea of
publicorderin1962reflectedthecolonialmindsetofsuppressingtheunruly In 2001, 2007 and 2009 Ghana,
NewZealandandtheUKrepealed
natives, rather than the genuine protection of members of Indian society. In theirseditionlaws
contrast, the current view is best reflected by the 2007 dicta of the Delhi High
Courtexpressedrecentlythatthecriticismofthegovernmentisthehallmarkof
democracy... the essence of democracy is criticism of the government. It is evident that in 1962, freedom of
expression was seen as taking second place when competing with interests of State security. The court had
expressed: Freedom has to be guarded against becoming a licence for vilification and condemnation of the
governmentestablishedbylaw,inwordswhichinciteviolenceorhavethetendencytocreatepublicdisorder.This
dictareflectsthejudicialattitudethatfreedomofexpressionwasasecondorderwhencompetingwithmattersof
security of the State. Contrastingly, in 1995 the Supreme Court expressed that the freedom of expression is a
preferredright,whichisalwaysveryzealouslyguardedbytheSupremeCourt.

International guidelines on the limitation of freedom of expression make sedition an unreasonable restriction on
freedomofexpressionin2011.

MargaretStrideisaNewDelhibasedrightsactivist
margaret.globalspokes@gmail.com

Print EmailtoFriend | FromTehelkaMagazine,Vol8,Issue17,Dated30Apr2011

AboutUs|AdvertiseWithUs|PrintSubscriptions|Syndication|TermsofService|PrivacyPolicy|Feedback|ContactUs|Bouquets&Brickbats
Tehelka.comisapartofAnantMediaPvt.Ltd.20002012Allrightsreserved

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op300411Not21st.asp 3/3