Supreme Court’s remarks on sedition cases bode well for its inevitable invalidation

Supreme Court’s remarks on sedition cases bode well for its inevitable invalidation

Subject: Polity

Context: Recently, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the “misuse” of the sedition law and no accountability of executive agencies and it sought to know that if this “colonial law” is still needed 75 years after Independence.

Concept:

• The law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860.
• Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen when it felt the need for a specific section to deal with the offence.
• It was one of the many draconian laws enacted to stifle any voices of dissent at that time.
• The term ‘sedition’ has been defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
• It is defined as an offence committed when “any person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India”.
• Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• The comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section.

Sedition Law against Freedom Fighters

• The first known instance of the application of the law was the trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891.
• Bal Gangadhar Tilak was charged with sedition in 1897 for writing an article in his weekly publication called Kesari and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
• He was tried again in 1908 and was represented by MA Jinnah but his application for bail was rejected and he was sentenced to six years.
• In 1922, Mahatma Gandhi was arrested on charges of sedition in Bombay for taking part in protests against the colonial government.