Law Commission Recommendations on Sedition

Context: Law Commission of India has opined that Section 124A criminalising sedition should be retained. However, with some procedural safeguards.

S. G. Vombatkere Case (Supreme Demands Review of Sedition Law)

• The opinion of Law Commission is significant as a Supreme Court bench last year decided to put in abeyance all cases of Sedition and directed Centre & State Governments not register any fresh FIR invoking the offence. (S. G. Vombatkere Case)
• The Court also directed the Government for examining the sedition law as it found the sedition law not in tune with current times. 

Reasons for demand of repeal of sedition law:

• Sedition law has a chilling effect on free speech and expression.
• Alleged misuse of sedition law for curbing political dissent.
• Vague definition of sedition law leading to erroneous interpretation
• Very easy to use this law and lack of checks & safeguards
• Overzealous application of this law to please political masters (important particularly in light of lack of police reforms)

Reasons for Retaining Sedition as a Crime

For safeguarding the Unity & Integrity of India: 

• All organised societies have right to protect itself against attempts to overthrow. It is the chief duty of any government to safeguard State & its institutions against external and internal attack. 
• Precondition of enjoying freedom is to ensure the security of the State because without such guarantee of stability the rest of the law will be ineffective.
• Section 124A provides a prompt and effective mechanism for suppression of disintegrating tendencies and protects & preserves the integrity of Indian State. It is a deterrent for persons who want to commit acts of incitement to violence & acts causing disturbance of public order. 
• Sedition law can check the proliferation of radicalisation against India, promotion of hatred against Government particularly on the social media. 

Sedition is a Reasonable Restriction under Article 19(2)

• Critics have argued that Sedition Law is violative of Right to speech and expression under Article 19(2) of Constitution. But arguments against this position are:
• Constituent Assembly substituted ‘sedition’ with ‘which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow the State’, as the later phrase had a wider import and was more expansive in meaning.
• First Amendment of the Constitution incorporated public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to an offence as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(a). SC in Kedar Nath Singh judgement held that sedition was a constitutional restriction under the ambit reasonable restrictions to speech & expression.
• When two interpretations of a law are possible the one rendering it constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former interpretation should prevail. 

Existence of counter-terror legislations does not obviate the need for Section 124A: 

• Critics argue that counter terror laws like UAPA & National Security Act makes the sedition law irrelevant. However, these special laws & anti-terror legislations dealing with national security seek to prevent or punish the commission of offences targeted towards the state. 
• On the other hand, Sedition law seeks to prevent violent, illegal & unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government established by law. Hence, the existence of counter terror laws does not imply all elements of the offence envisaged under Sedition.

Sedition being a colonial legacy is not a valid ground for its repeal: 

• Critics argue that sedition law is of a colonial legacy and was used against freedom fighters. However, if we go by this logic then the entire legal system of India should be overthrown as India’s legal system is a colonial legacy.
• The colonial government acted like a master and treated Indians not a citizens but as its servant. 
• However, in today’s constitutional and democratic set up, Government is based on the will of the people, wherein the government is only a servant of the people as it is elected by the people. 
• Constitution provides ample space and liberty to people to indulge in healthy & constructive criticism of their government in a democratic set up. 
• However, there is a need to penalise pernicious tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder in the guise of right to freedom of speech & expression.

Realities differ in every jurisdiction: 

• The argument that just because some countries have repealed sedition from law books means India should also repeal sedition means turning a blind eye to the glaring ground realities & security concerns existing in India. 
• Even the countries which have repealed sedition law, mere cosmetic changes have been made in the law of sedition without taking away the core of law of sedition or merely merged their sedition law with counter terror laws.

Recommendations of Law Commission on Sedition

1. Incorporation of ratio of Kedar Nath Judgement of Section 124A of IPC: Supreme Court laid down in Kedar Nath Singh that unless the words used or actions in question 

• Do not tend to incite violence or 
• Cause public disorder or
• Cause disturbance to public peace

2. Procedural Guidelines for Preventing any Alleged Misuse of Section 124A of IPC

• To prevent any alleged misuse of Section 124A of IPC, the Law Commission has suggested certain procedural safeguards to be undertaken prior to registration of FIR with respect to commission of an offence of Sedition. 
• These procedural safeguards can be introduced by issuance of guidelines by central government or an amendment in Section 154 of CrPC (dealing with filing of FIR for cognizable offence).
• A FIR for an offence of Sedition can be filed only after a police officer not below the rank of inspector conducts a preliminary inquiry. Based on this preliminary report, the Central or State Government should grant permission for registering a FIR.

3. Removal of Oddity in Punishment Prescribed for Section 124A of IPC: Currently, the punishment prescribed for sedition is either life imprisonment or imprisonment for three years, but nothing in between. There is a need to reform the punishment prescribed for sedition under IPC to allow courts greater room to award punishment for sedition in line with scale and gravity of act committed.