At an event organised last week in memory of actor and activist Vira Sathidar, a group of young cultural activists sang the lyrics of Faiz’s famous Hum Dekhenge. The Nagpur police have now booked the organisers and the event’s speaker under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to sedition, along with other sections of the BNS, including Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 353 (statements conducive to public mischief).

Sathidar, an accomplished actor, prolific writer, journalist, and political thinker, died on April 13, 2021, after battling COVID-19 for over a week. Satidhar was also an Ambedkarite and the editor of Vidrohi magazine. Since his passing, his wife, Pushpa, is one of the organisers of the annual memorial. A committee was formed after Sathidar’s death under the name ‘Vira Sathidar Smruti Samanvay Samiti’ which has been instrumental in organising the annual event. This year, social activist Uttam Jagirdar was invited to speak. Although the FIR does not name individuals explicitly, it refers to the event’s organiser and speaker.

At the event organised on May 13 at the Vidarbha Sahitya Sangh, attended by over 150 people, Jagirdar talked about the contentious Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024. The  BJP-led state government is aggressively pushing to convert this bill into a law and implement it. Activists and academics believe this bill, if enacted, will lead to blatant violations of human rights and allow dissenting voices to be labeled “urban Naxals”.

The FIR, filed by one local Nagpur resident Dattatray Shirke, cites a news report aired on ABP Majha, a Marathi channel. The channel was likely the first to find issue in reciting Faiz’s poetry in India. In his complaint, Shirke claims, “At a time when the country valiantly fought Pakistani forces, the radical left in Nagpur were busy singing Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem.

Shirke further claims that the line “Takht hilaane ki zaroorat hai (a need to shake the throne)” constitutes a direct threat to the government. However, while the FIR quotes the above line, the actual line in the poem is “sab takht giraye jayenge”. The poem was performed by young Mumbai-based cultural activists from Samata Kala Manch.

Despite an ongoing stay by the Supreme Court on the application of sedition charges, the Nagpur police have booked the organisers and speakers under the section. On May 11, 2022, the apex court had issued a historic order, staying all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code until the sedition law’s re-examination was complete. Since then, the BJP-led government has replaced the IPC with the BNS. However, the new law does not eliminate the sedition provision. Instead, the BNS introduces Section 152, which closely resembles the sedition law without explicitly using the word ‘sedition’.

Journalist arrested on same month

This is the second case this month in which the Nagpur police have targeted an individual’s freedom of expression. Earlier this month, a 26-year-old Kerala-based journalist, Rejaz M. Sheeba Sydeek, visiting Nagpur, was arrested for posting a photo of himself posing with two fake guns and opposing the Indian Army.

Initially investigated by the Nagpur city police and now handled by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Rejaz is accused of opposing Operation Sindoor – India’s military strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The agency has also alleged that Rejaz has connections with banned organisations, including the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. These banned organisations have radically different ideologies and the police have accused Rejaz of espousing ideologies of each of these banned groups.

Vira Sathidar’s endless protest

During his lifetime, Sathidar faced constant harassment from the police due to his political activism, keeping him under their radar. In a long interview with The Wire, months before his death, Sathidar had raised concern over the government’s tactics of employing new methods to control its citizens. For instance, while shooting for the film Court in 2013, the Gondia police arrived unannounced on the Mumbai set, searching for a “Naxal from Nagpur.” A year before his death, after raising issues against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters in Nagpur, his house was raided by local police. During the raid, a sword was found, but local youths chased the police away.

In October 2020, when the NIA filed a supplementary chargesheet in the Elgar Parishad case, Sathidar’s name appeared among the so-called “urban Naxals,” a term loosely used by the Devendra Fadnavis-led government to target dissenters. Now, with the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, the state government seeks to formalise the term “urban Naxal” within the legal framework.

The government had made several attempts to criminalise Satidhar when he was alive and such efforts have seemingly continued even after his death.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Singing Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ is ‘Sedition’: Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

May 8, 2025

Strategically India has actually begun a new phase in terms of collapsing distinction between military and terrorist (non-state actors) in Pakistan. In effect, the response to any terrorist activity will invite a conventional response and so this puts the onus on the Pakistani military to make sure that it cannot hide any longer behind terrorists and non-state actors.

In any case the Pakistan military has used militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage. It has also used the same actors – some of whom were targeted in the recent strikes – to foment sectarian tension in Pakistan.

Operation Sindoor resets all received notions of Indo-Pak relationships as the response to terrorist attacks will be met with a military response and removes any semantic distinction between the two.

Despite this collapse, care has been taken by the Indian armed forces to not target military or civilian installations or infrastructure so that there is no unnecessary escalation. The message is clear: if you don’t deal with your terrorism problem then we will! The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided.

There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one, let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone. Being part of a mock civil defence drill does not make you a solider and neither will you ever know the pain of someone who suffers losses because of conflict.

War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence – at least human history teaches us this –we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily.

Lastly, I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.

When a prominent Muslim politicians said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis for doing so – Indian right wing commentators defended him by saying “he is our mulla.” Of course this is funny but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the indian body politic.

For me, the press conference was just a fleeting glimpse – an illusion and allusion perhaps – to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. As I said, the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.

Jai Hind

§

May 11, 2025

The blind bloodlust for war!

Despite a ceasefire there are those who are baying for war.

War has gone from being somewhat self contained to now being everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Civilians have always been impacted by war but due to military technology, the impact is now exponentially much more than even two centuries ago.

So when you clamour for war or you call for a country to be wiped out, then what exactly are you asking? For the genocide of an entire people? I know Israel is getting away with doing this – and some Indians admire this – but do we really want to advocate the wholesale murder of children as potential future enemies?

Just because you are far from the border or because you have internalised so much hate that you no longer think of human beings when you think of an entire country, people, religious community, ethnic group, or social group doesn’t mean you are safe. This goes for all places where this conflict. You cannot equate an entire people with their government. In any case war eventually hits everyone. It’s just a matter of time.

Think about what it means when you say “wipe them out,” “finish them,” “destroy them” etc?

You are saying kill all the children, the elderly, minorities, those who are opposed to war on the other side and many other innocent people who want to do exactly what you want to do: be a father, a mother, a daughter, a son, a grandparent and a friend. You can only ask for such wholesale destruction if you have completely dehumanised them.

This is what the media, religious/ community leaders, politicians and others seek to do: dehumanise the other so that you do not even see them as human beings. It’s happening on both sides of the Radcliffe line – there are madmen everywhere, but those closer to the border know what war means. It means arbitrary, unpredictable and senseless death.

Those far from the border seem to think war is some kind of video game. This dehumanisation is symptomatic of deep seated insecurities within us because we somehow need to deny someone else’s humanity to affirm our own. But the reality is that the minute we dehumanise someone else – even though they might represent the opposite of everything we stand for – then we have given in to our basest instincts. We have sown the seeds of our own destruction.

People will tell you that those who call for peace are cowards. No, I tell you. Those who sit at home and call for war are cowards because it is not their sons and daughters who have to go to battle.

Anyway, how on earth will war ever lead to peace? Does more abuse lead to less trauma? The military industrial complex in the world is the most profitable business ($2.46 trillion), in comparison pharma is $1.6 trillion and oil is $750 billion.

War is about profit and greed not about ideals and values. The days of those wars have gone if indeed they were ever there. We like to tell tales of honour in war but these stories are actually often about warriors who are exceptional human beings who transcend their ego and base sense of self. How strange that, as Sassoon said, Soldiers conceal their hatred of war. Civilians conceal their liking for it.

The Gita like many other holy books speaks of the complex moral dilemmas of going into war and of what kind of violence is justified. Contrary to popular misconceptions the Gita is not about war but about the reasons for going into war including dharma, duty and righteousness.

What makes war just? Even if we accept that war is inevitable because violence is a part of the human condition, it is precisely this – the violence within all of us – that we have to try and overcome. Wars fought for pride, ego and all the false ideologies that flow from them can never be just. Remember Krishn Ji’s main contention is that Arjun set aside his own ego.

श्रीभगवानुवाच |

काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भव: ||

महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् ||

The Supreme Lord said: It is lust alone, which is born of contact with the mode of passion, and later transformed into anger. Know this as the sinful, all-devouring enemy in the world.

In the above verse from the Gita (3:37) the word for lust is kaam which doesn’t only mean sexual desire but all kinds of material desire. Lust in some cases is the urge for money, physical cravings, craving for prestige, the drive for power, etc. Desire deceives the soul into believing that material objects will provide satisfaction. However, when desires are satisfied, they produce greed; when they aren’t satisfied, we see anger. One commits wrongs under the influence of all three– lust, greed and anger. They are all linked.

The Prophet said “do not desire to meet your enemy in battle, but if you do then be patient.”

This patience is what is key. Once Imam Ali was in combat with a warrior called Am ibn Abd Wadd during the battle of the Trench. Maulana Rumi says:

از علی آموز اخلاص عمل

شیر حق را دان مُطهَّر از دغل

“Learn the purity of of actions from Ali. Know that the Lion of God is free from deceit.”

Imam Ali felled Abd Wadd and was about to kill him when the latter spat on his face. Imam Ali withdrew immediately. When someone asked why he did this, he said in that moment I would have killed him because I was angry. My ego would have got in the way. So the only honourable thing was to withdraw.

The kind of war mongering we are seeing amongst civilians is actually disrespecting the seriousness of war and dishonouring the lives of soldiers whose lives are actually on the line.

The recent trolling of Vikram Misri, India’s foreign secretary, by supporters of the BJP who are clamouring for war, actually shows just how blinding hate and anger can be. Imagine abusing someone who was following orders from politicians and trolling their family. This is the extent to which blood lust has gripped these people.

Ali Khan Mahmudabad is a professor at Ashoka University.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad’s Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Monga allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR No. 239/2024 dated July 6, 2024 lodged at Police Station Purani Abadi, district Ganganagar (Rajasthan) registered against the Tajender Pal Singh and emphasized that this provision should not be misused to stifle legitimate dissent. It clarified that only deliberate actions with malicious intent would fall under its scope, specifically those that threaten India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.

The Court stressed that Section 152 should be applied cautiously, ensuring it aligns with the right to freedom of speech and expression. It noted that there must be a clear connection between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion for such provisions to apply. The Court further observed that this provision should act as a shield for national security, not as a weapon to suppress dissent.

Background

In the case, the complainant asserted that Tajender Pal Singh, the petitioner, posed a threat to India’s integrity and sovereignty, which led to the filing of a police complaint. This complaint was subsequently converted into an FIR, which the petitioner sought to challenge. Tajender Pal Singh, who identifies himself as a preacher of the Sikh religion, claimed to be officially appointed by the Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, as the coordinator for the Dharam Prachaarak Committee in Rajasthan. However, he contended that the complainant was a proxy planted by a rival from another Gurdwara to misuse state machinery and settle personal scores. The petitioner denied the allegations, arguing that they were baseless and part of a vendetta.

The petitioner filed the Criminal Misc. Petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 0239/2024, registered on July 6, 2024, at the Purani Abadi Police Station, District Ganganagar, for alleged offenses under Sections 152 and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint alleged that on July 5, 2024, the petitioner posted an audio-video recording on Facebook from Baba Deep Singh Gurudwara, in which he reportedly expressed sympathy for Amritpal Singh. The complainant accused the petitioner of spreading anti-national content and inciting public unrest.

Decision of the High Court

After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court ruled that Section 152 of the BNS must be applied with caution, in alignment with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court emphasized that to invoke this provision, a clear and imminent connection must exist between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion.

The Court also dismissed the charges in the FIR under Section 197, BNS, noting that an expression critical of government actions, without inciting violence or hatred, does not fall under the scope of this section. Section 197, BNS, aims to safeguard national integration by criminalizing actions that promote disharmony, enmity, or hatred. However, the Court clarified that merely the potential of causing disharmony is not enough to establish intent, especially in the absence of concrete evidence.

The Court called for proper judicial oversight and clear guidelines to interpret terms like “disharmony” and “ill-will” to prevent this provision from being misused as a tool for suppressing dissent. It stressed the need for enforcement authorities to exercise restraint to ensure constructive dialogues and political dissent are not stifled.

Regarding the video at the centre of the case, the Court acknowledged that the video, made in Punjabi, could potentially be misunderstood due to the directness and expressive nature of the language. However, it concluded that there was no malice on the part of the speaker. The Court observed that colloquial Punjabi, with its vigor and directness, might unintentionally come across as offensive. For a statement to be criminalized, there must be substantial evidence of malicious intent or public harm, not just subjective offense. Merely perceiving a statement as offensive is insufficient without tangible proof of public repercussions or intent to incite unrest or violence.

“Colloquial Punjabi, with its rich and expressive nature, can invariably come across as offensive, even when no malice or intent to offend is present. This characteristic stems from the inherent directness and vigor of the language, which may sometimes be misunderstood. However, for such expressions to be deemed criminal, there must be demonstrable public repercussions or substantive evidence indicating deliberate malicious intent (mens rea) to commit any public unrest or incite violence. Merely perceiving a statement as offensive is insufficient without a broader context or tangible harm to substantiate the claim” the bench observed.

With regards to the retrospective application of the Sanhita, Justice Monga said that, “In my opinion, the substantive penal provisions of the BNS, 2023 [in this case section 152 and sections 197(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] cannot be retrospectively invoked against the petitioner for the so-called criminal acts done or committed before 01.07.2024, the date of it’s coming into force.”

The judgement of Rajasthan High Court dated 16.12.2024 can be read here

Related:

Landmark ruling: SC orders Sedition law to be kept in abeyance

The case against Sedition

64 percent increase in Sedition cases since 2015

The post Lawful criticism of government policies through lawful means not constitute sedition: Raj HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The interim protection order was passed after the matter was urgently mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave. Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave stated that the said petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution for protection.

“She is 4 years into practice. She was part of 3 member of team of National Federation of Indian Women, associated with the Communist party. A press conference was held in Delhi. We learn that the offences are Section 121A, 124A, 153, 153A, and 153B of the Indian Penal Code. Two of the offences are punishable with life imprisonment”, Advocate Dave had stated, as stated by Livelaw. Advocate Dave also informed that the petitioner is yet to receive a copy of the FIR.

Notably, the aforementioned three women activists and advocates had been charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code: Section 121-A (Waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India), 124 (Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power), 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot ) 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration ), 499 (Defamation), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace ), 505(2)/34 (any statement rumour with common intention).

Assertions made by the Petitioner

Advocate Dwivedi argued in her petition to the Supreme Court that she had accompanied a two-woman delegation from the NIFW as an independent lawyer and observer, as reported by the Bar and Bench. After the investigation, a news conference was held in Imphal on July 1 and a press release with the team’s findings was also released. The said the NIFW team had come to the conclusion that the State was behind several violent episodes in Manipur, and thus termed them to be “state sponsored”.  Following this, the Manipur Police filed an FIR, charging Dwivedi and NIFW representatives with sedition, defamation, making assertions prejudicial to national-integration and, other related offences.

The petitioner drew attention to the fact that, despite the fact that the NIFW team’s press release served as the basis for the FIR, she had not signed it. She further argued that the press release’s contents were not seditious nor did they constitute the additional offences listed in Sections 153, 153B, 499, 504, 505 (2), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner also highlighted that there were no untoward reactions or incidents as a result of this press release, as provided by the Bar and Bench.

“The contents of the press release are based on the interviews with the local women and are bonafide representations of their concerns, bringing forth their account of incidents … The Petitioner conveyed the sense of frustration and helplessness that they had encountered in the relief camps. It is submitted that similar reports have found place in several national newsprint and national media, which only goes to further strengthen that none of the contents of the said press release either make any factually incorrect statement and/or seek to mislead the public,” the plea stated, as reported by the Bar and Bench.

Order of the Court

The bench passed the order as follows:

“Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel has mentioned the proceedings for urgent orders because there is an apprehension that the petitioner, who is a member of the bar with four years standing, is likely to be arrested. The petitioner has submitted that she does not have a copy of the FIR at this stage. We have requested Mr. Dave to ensure that the copy of the petition be served on the advocate instructing the Solicitor General of India. The SG may take instructions on the background of the case. List on Friday. Till 5 PM on Friday, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of FIR no….”, as reported by LiveLaw.

The Court has now listed the case for further hearing on July 14, Friday. In meanwhile, the Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner.

Related:

FIR against members NSIW fact-finding team, academics & activists

Manipur Violence: SC bench seeks updated status report from State on rehabilitation, law & order situation

One in Manipur, another in Kashmir: Veterans slam two faces of Indian Army

Dismiss Manipur govt, safe passage for internally displaced, set up an Independent Tribunal: ICPA

Manipur is Burning but who cares?

Despite efforts, three delegations from violence-struck Manipur failed to meet PM Modi

Manipur Is Burning Because of BJP’s Divisive Politics: Civil Society Groups

Denial of internet an assault on fundamental freedoms – a deep dive into Manipur’s incessant internet ban

The post Manipur violence: SC provides interim protection in sedition case against lawyer who accompanied fact-finding team appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the case after hearing Senior Counsel Amit Kumar Deshpande on behalf of Shaheen School Management. Notably, the prosecution initiated against them was under sections 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes), 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting, attempting to promote disharmony) and 34 (common intent) of the Indian Penal Code.

A detailed order copy is awaited.

Brief Background of the case:

In January 2020, the students had performed a play on the CAA and NRC, following which an FIR was registered at the Bidar New Town police station based on a complaint by activist Nilesh Rakshala. The charge of sedition was levied against the school authorities for performing “anti-national activities” and “spreading negative opinion” about parliamentary laws.

It was alleged by the complainant that the school used the students to perform a drama whereby Modi was “abused” for introducing Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).  The complainant alleged that the play was spreading misinformation by saying that Muslims in India have to leave the country because of NRC. This message was shared on social media to spread misinformation, the complaint said. The complainant said, “The management tried to create ‘fear’ among the Muslims that they would have to leave the country if the CAA and NRC are implemented”.

Pursuant to the FIR, Fareeda Begum, headmistress of Shaheen Primary and High School and Nazbunnissa, the mother of a girl student, who had uttered a dialogue, which was treated by the police as insulting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were arrested on January 30, 2020. They were later released by a Sessions Court in February 14, 2020.

Shaheen Group of institutions had contested the allegations and said that the Police were treating the children as “anti-nationals” and visiting the school daily.

On August 17, 2021, the Bangalore Bench of the Karnataka High Court made a statement stating that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 and children’s rights were violated by the presence of armed police officers while questioning children in connection with the same case.
The current MLA of Mudigere constituency, Nayana Jyothi Jhawar, filed had this current petition in relation to children’s rights. The petition claimed that 85 students, some of whom were as young as nine years old, had to endure police questioning, which had an adverse effect on children’s psychology.

As has been reported by the Hindustan Gazette, Dr. Abdul Qadeer, Chairman Shaheen Group of Institutions, had expressed his belief in the court’s ability to deliver justice. He thanked his advocates, the media, and other friends for their support during challenging times.

Police visiting school and questioning children

The first visit of the police to the school was on January 28, which had garnered widespread criticism for putting the kids through trauma after they were seen investigating children. They had then visited the school on January 31, but this time in plainclothes. Again, in an investigation on February 1, they interrogated 60 students. On February 4, 2020, as had been reported by SabrangIndia, four policemen in plainclothes along with two female members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had visited the Shaheen School for the fourth time as part of the investigation in the case of sedition registered against the school authorities for staging a play where some characters allegedly ‘insulted’ Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The policemen and the members of the CWC were joined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Basaveshwara Hira, who had then allegedly proceeded to grill seven students, six of whom were not part of the play. The questioning had lasted two hours and some of the students questioned were not part of the play. It was reported that the investigating officers asked the same students that were asked in previous investigations – who gave the students the script, who taught them the dialogues, and where the rehearsal had taken place.

Tauseef Madikeri, CEO of Shaheen Group of Institutions, had said, “I cannot understand why the police are repeatedly subjecting the children of 9 to 12 age group to mental torture. The harassment will affect them in the long run. The police don’t understand if we tell them.” He also said, “This is mental harassment of the students who are 9 or 10 years old and also of the parents. Some students who took part in the play have not turned up at school because of this. Is this because we are a minority institution?”

Related:

Sedition charge on Karnataka school for anti-CAA skit

How & Why India’s Law Commission has urged a cap on Free Speech: Sedition

Supreme Court will soon hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of sedition law

SC Order putting sedition law on hold to continue

Sharjeel Imam granted bail in the 2019 Sedition Case

If Sedition goes, so must criminalising provisions of UAPA: CCG

Landmark ruling: SC orders Sedition law to be kept in abeyance

The post Karnataka HC: Sedition charges quashed against Shaheen school for performing anti-CAA skit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Damodar S. Seth and Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur in the Constituent Assembly Debates have voiced their concerns for limiting fundamental rights at length against sedition.

Quoting Damodar S. Seth “boon of fundamental rights is still beyond our reach and the making of this Constitution will prove to be of little value to this country.” Quoting Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur “Fundamental rights are fundamental, permanent, and sacred and ought to be guaranteed against coercive powers of a State by excluding the jurisdiction of the executive and the legislature. If the jurisdiction of the executive and the legislature is not excluded, these fundamental rights will be reduced to ordinary rights and cease to be fundamental. That is the import, the significance of fundamental rights.”

It was amidst these sharp concerns voiced by India’s constitution framers that an amendment was made in the law, the word sedition from the limitations of freedom of speech and replaced it in the Indian Penal Code (124A) with the defining criterea ‘which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State’.

Replacing the words have in fact, however made no change to the restrictions placed on fundamental rights. The concerns of the constituent assembly members have not been addressed. The fact that fundamental rights are permanent and should not be curbed when they matter the most has been a gross oversight.

It was understandable if not justifiable that avaricious Imperial Forces employed the wide and expansive power of Section 124A ergo Sedition to smother and arrest the Flames of Dissent. There are numerous cases of our freedom fighters being charged with sedition. This saga does not begin and end with Mahatma Gandhi. It extends to Jogendra Chandra Bose, ‘Lokmanya’ Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, even Ganesh Savarkar and many others. One would have thought that after suffering such profound wounds in Sedition’s grasp, the Elected Constituent Assembly would repeal this barbaric statute. But, it still lives.

It must be emphatically said therefore, that, historically speaking sedition laws have caused harm to the country and its people during the vibrant struggle for independence. After the battle for a free and sovereign India, however, how is it that the law still remains. The question that rises again is India truly independent if its people are not truly free –to speak and act?

22nd^h Law Commission report of Sedition (124-A, IPC)

Now, instead of responding to current judicial and political thinking, the most recent Law Commission Report recommends that the offence of sedition be retained in Indian penal law. This flies in the face of not just what a modern outward looking democracy should be doing. Section 124A of the IPC describes sedition, seeks to punish speech or writing that brings or tries to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or tries to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law. Its validity was upheld by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962, but with the reservation that it would be a constitutionally permissible restriction on free speech, only if the offence was restricted to words that had a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder.

What the Law Commission in 2023 fails to do is to consider how deep and far free speech jurisprudence has travelled since then. While retaining sedition cases in abeyance last year, the Supreme Court had, in 2022, observed that “the rigours of Section 124A of IPC are not in tune with the current social milieu”. At the time, the Union government, too, had decided to re-examine and reconsider the provision. Has not then the time come to consider the provision in the light of recent principles to test the validity of any restriction on fundamental rights, especially free speech? Given its overbroad nature, the sedition definition may not survive such scrutiny. The very existence of the statute offers immeasurable scope for its unjustified use, most often with a deliberate intent to suppress dissent and imprison critics.

Historiography of the concept of sedition-

The commission provides us with a definition of seditious intention provided by Sir James Charles-

“A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of, Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite Her Majesty’s subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects”

The origin of sedition laws has been dealt with at length. It was introduced by the British since colonial rule was oppressive. A law that had been introduced under colonial rule to keep India subject to outside control, is not a law a democratic country needs, even with amendments made. The law has been abolished by UK itself, why are we still following a law that has a colonial and repressive legacy?

It is clear that origin of such a law was within a monarchic system of government. Then, questioning the ruler had a different connotation from the rights of sovereign people to question those who govern them. That then is the clear distinction between a monarchy and a democratic government. A democratic government gets its legitimacy from the reasoned and unfettered right of the people to both choose their leaders and voice their opinions. It has been defined as the government for the people, by the people, of the people. Democratic systems emphasise citizen participation, including the right to vote, freedom of speech, assembly, and other civil liberties. In a monarchy, in stark contrast, or any other oppressive form of rule these rights have no consideration. The sedition laws were put in place, so people don’t rise against an oppressive nature of the government. If the government is truly democratic in nature, subject to the people’s right to vote for change, why then the need for sedition laws? How can you guarantee freedom of speech but also restrict it where it matters the most?

India’s Constitutional Courts & sedition

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all individuals. However, article 19 (2) of the Constitution, places “reasonable restrictions” on the right to speech in the interests of India’s security and sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. The word sedition was replaced with the use of the sentence “which Undermines the security or tends to overthrow the state.” The replacement did not make much of a difference. The Supreme Court in the Kedarnath Judgement[1] answered the question of whether the S.124A of the IPC was in violation of Article 19(1) or came under a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)[2], the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of free speech and expression while also emphasising that the offence of sedition must be read narrowly. The court ruled that criticising the government or authorities, no matter how forcefully phrased, does not necessarily constitute sedition unless they promote violence or have a direct tendency to undermine public order.

In the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)[3], the Supreme Court emphasised that mere sloganeering or raising of anti-government political slogans does not inherently constitute to sedition. The necessity of distinguishing between the right to criticise and the act of instigating violence or causing public disorder was emphasised by the court.

In the Shreya Singhal case (2015)[4], the court emphasised that freedom of speech and expression is a basic right that should be maintained and only limited in extraordinary circumstances. They emphasised the need of applying sedition laws narrowly and cautioned against using them to repress legitimate dissent or criticism of the government. The decisions emphasised the significance of establishing a balance between national security and fundamental rights, notably in the context of sedition statutes.  In his concurring opinion, Justice Nariman emphasised that sedition is a serious offence that should be understood narrowly and should not be used to restrict lawful speech of unpopular or critical ideas. He emphasised that sedition should be limited to activities that promote violence or public unrest. In his majority opinion, Justice Misra emphasised the importance of free expression and its role in a democratic society. He held the view that, even though it was distasteful to some, expression of opinion could not be criminalised unless it posed a clear and present risk to public order.

However, the way narrowed justification of the law on sedition has been set by the Courts, is far from how it has been used. Section 124-A is grossly misinterpreted by the police and other governmental authorities. The fact also that it is a non-bailable offence makes the situation worse for a democratic country.

How the 22^nd Report breaks from Jurisprudence

In the 22^nd report of the Law Commission, there has been a serious misinterpretation in the case of Kedar Nath case. The report states that a strict proximity test and a tendency test needs to be applied to check whether Section 124A of the IPC will be applicable or not. However, the only test mentioned in the Kedarnath case is the tendency test without subtests, departing from the proximity requirement in Indian public order jurisprudence. The report also overlooks the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which emphasized the importance of discussion and advocacy and limited the application of the tendency test.

The report has also grossly overlooked the judicial statements made by judges, with regards to sedition laws after Kedarnath. In a recent remark, the present chief justice, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasised the importance of defining the limits of sedition, expressing worry over the indiscriminate application of the sedition statute in India. The judge notably addressed concerns about the use of sedition charges against persons who expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the COVID-19 epidemic, including those seeking medical assistance and supplies during the pandemic’s second wave (The Vinod Dua Case). While hearing a petition filed by two television networks against the Andhra Pradesh government, Justice L. Nageswara Rao expressed concern about the sedition statute being used to silence the media. In a recent decision, Justice U.U. Lalit dismissed a sedition prosecution against journalist Mr. Dua, defending journalists’ right to criticise the government’s policies, even harshly, in order to improve or modify them through legal means.

In addition, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana stated in July 2021 that Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code may be outmoded. The then Chief Justice acknowledged the public desire for judicial review of how law enforcement officials utilise the sedition statute to limit free expression and imprison journalists, activists, and dissenters. This remark demonstrates the court’s awareness of the matter and readiness to resolve the issues highlighted.

Overall, the words of several Supreme Court justices indicate a growing realisation of the need to study the sedition legislation and ensure that its use does not restrict free speech and expression, particularly in situations involving journalists, activists, and dissenters.

The Law Commission Report completely overlooks these observations and findings of India’s Constitutional Courts post-Independence.

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, aims to subdue and remove the last forms of resistance in society. Such a proclivity contradicts the inherent principles of democracy. The existence of such a provision in a modern country like India looks to be superfluous. The clause is harsh because of the severity of the penalty. The continuance of such a clause limits freedom of speech and expression, which is ostensibly a basic right granted by Indian Constitution Article 19(1)(a). To keep up with the changing needs of society, India’s sedition laws must evolve and alter.

Misuse of the sedition law

There have been multiple instances of misuse of sedition laws in India, to silence dissent and give greater power to the government. Here are some instances of the misuse of sedition laws in the country-

1. In 2020, journalist Vinod Dua was charged with sedition after a complaint by a local BJP leader in Himachal Pradesh, and the charges were based on his critical remarks against the central government in a YouTube video. The Supreme Court later quashed the sedition charges against Dua, emphasising the importance of protecting free speech.
2. Sedition accusations (apart from the draconian UAPA) against activists in Bhima Koregaon case: Several activists and intellectuals were detained in Maharashtra in 2018 in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence case. Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, and Gautam Navlakha were among them. They were charged with sedition, among other things, but the arrests prompted condemnation, with many claiming that sedition laws were being used to persecute dissenting voices.
3. Sedition charges were filed against several farmers protesting new agricultural laws near Delhi in 2021, based on allegations of violence and inciting public disorder. Critics argued that using sedition laws against peaceful protesters violated their right to free expression and assembly.
4. Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi faced sedition charges: In 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was charged with sedition for his cartoons that purportedly mocked and criticised corruption in India’s political system. Although the charges were eventually dismissed, the case raised worries about the misuse of sedition laws to pursue political satirists and artists.
5. Sedition charges against Amnesty International: Amnesty International India was charged with sedition in 2016 for organising a human rights event in Jammu and Kashmir. The allegations were widely condemned as a violation of free expression and an attempt to muzzle critics.
6. Students charged with sedition at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU): In 2016, sedition charges were filed against numerous students at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi for allegedly raising anti-national slogans. The charges generated widespread condemnation, with many claiming that the application of sedition statutes was harsh and disproportionate in this case.

These are just but a few instances of the misuse of sedition laws to silence anyone and everyone who have tried to express their discontent with the law in place. The question remains, how can we call ourselves a democracy when people cannot raise their voice against an unjust law or criticize the functioning of the government?

Reasoning of the Law Commission

The report emphasises that valid criticism of the government is permissible as long as it does not incite violence or support the disintegration of the country. However, since the Commission has prescribed the use of the tendency rule, this will hamper even very valid criticism since there is no objective test on what can or cannot incite people. While the Commission has, time and again in its report, made efforts to show that this classification is a reasonable restriction it is found to contradict itself by actually recommending stricter rules be put in place, while also preaching values of democracy. How can a nation be sovereign when it is not democratic in its true essence?

The Commission also and at length spoken about the “internal security” of India being in jeopardy and the need for a retention of the sedition law(s) which are a must to protect the “internal security of India.”

Now the moot question is – if any law in place, makes people want to jeopardize the internal security of their own nation, then should the law be changed/amended or should there be more restrictions put on the freedom of speech so as to snatch away the truly democratic element present in the society? As pointed out by senior counsel Kapil Sibil in an article in The Indian Express, over recent years, particularly since 2014, the sedition statute has been used to silence journalists, academics, political opponents, and students, particularly minorities, who attempt to address matters of national concern.

The Law Commission’s suggestions are designed to stifle even the most minor resistance and protests against the government’s unilateral and unjust policies. The report also goes on the blame the police for the misuse of the sedition laws. The report presents the police as an autonomous body responsible for the misuse, ignoring the role of the political class in influencing and pressuring police action.

The report then talks about countries like USA, UK, Australia and Canada in order to show that these countries although have abolished the sedition laws and have replaced them in counter terrorism laws. Are these examples of relevance? India too has not just a draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008 -UAPA- in place but several other “national security laws” who’s provisions not only exist but have been used also to stifle dissent and incarcerate citizens challenging a government democratically.[i]

However, it is important to note that these examples are futile, since the law commission itself has through its recent report that contains recommendations also attempted not to limit or water down or repeal but actually strengthen the sedition law in India. By inappropriately giving examples of countries that have abolished sedition laws and ensured freer speech, the Law Commission’s report lacks cohesion or conviction.

India’s sedition laws have and are being used to silence journalists, activists and opposition parties and not to maintain the security of the state. The security of the state is only a cloak, the motive is simply this – ensure that a harsh law makes it hard or near impossible for people to able to criticise governmental policies.

While the Supreme Court issued a decisive decision in Kedar Nath in 1962, clearly stating that the sedition law was only supposed to be used in rare cases where the country’s security and sovereignty were threatened, this has little bearing on the use of sedition charges by state authorities, particularly the police. As political polarisation and political distrust continue to be stoked and therefore are on the rise in the country, governments have increasingly used the abovementioned law as a handy tool against their political competitors, suppressing dissent and free expression.

Several recent Supreme Court and high court decisions have dramatically brought these features of misuse to the public’s attention, but with little or no deterrent effect on police and other state institutions.

Recommendations of the Law commission

The Law Commission in light of the fallacious reasons given by them have made the following recommendations with respect to sedition laws-

1. The tendency test must be used in order to decide case related to sedition- The proportionality test, or the imminent danger test would be more effective if the country was only worried about the security of India and did not want to silence the journalists, activists and opposition parties.
2. The procedural guidelines are established to prevent the misuse of the sedition laws, however they too are vague.
3. The report presents a proposed amendment to Section 124A of the IPC. The suggested amendment includes adding the phrase “with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder” to specify the nature of disaffection required for the offense. It also suggests expanding the punishment options to include imprisonment for life, imprisonment up to seven years, or a fine

By increasing the punishment for sedition and adding the tendency rule, the Law Commission report belies its own claim at the report’s release that states that valid criticism is welcome. Even valid criticism is in essence curtailed through these recommendations. These recommendations if implemented will have a chilling effect on democracy, and the right to the citizens to speech when on issues that are crucial and key.

(This resource has been prepared by the CJP’s Legal Research Team with contributions by intern, Hansi Jain)

[1] Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

[2] Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab,  1996 AIR  607

[3] Arup Bhuyan v. State Of Assam., 2011 3 SCC 377

[4] Shreya Singhal v. UOI, AIR 2015 SC 1523

[i] National Security Act (NSA), 1980, Jammu & Kashmir Public Security Act, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) 1989, a similar law in Karnataka and the amended Gujarat Goondas Act, 1985 amended in 2000

The post How & Why India’s Law Commission has urged a cap on Free Speech: Sedition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Months after they were arrested for allegedly cheering for the Pakistani cricket team after it beat India at the T20 World Cup, Altaf Shaikh, Shaukat Ahmed Ghani, and Arshid Yusuf, all students from Kashmir, will finally walk free. They were awarded bail by Allahabad High Court on Wednesday, March 30.

They were arrested in Agra, Uttar Pradesh on October 27, 2021, for allegedly cheering for the Pakistani team after they beat India at a T20 Cricket World Cup match. The three had been in jail since October 28, and were charged under Section 124A, of the Indian Penal Code a.k.a Sedition. According to a report in the quint the students had written social media posts “in favour of Pakistan after the team achieved a 10-wicket victory over India.” 

#Breaking: Three Kashmiri students who were arrested in Agra in December on charges of sedition after they cheered for Pakistan cricket team have been today granted bail by Allahabad High Court.Their lawyer Madhuban Dutt said the process for their release will take couple of days

— Zafar Aafaq (@ZafarAafaq) March 30, 2022

The FIR, according to the news report, was initially registered under IPC Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups) and 505 (creating or publishing content to promote enmity) and Section 124A (sedition) was included later. When the three Kashmiri students were produced in court, they were reportedly assaulted. A group of men, including some in the uniforms of lawyers, were seen charging at the three students as the police were escorting them into the back of a jeep. The men also raised slogans against Pakistan and shouted “Bharat Mata ki jai” and “Vande Mataram”, stated news reports of that day. They were at the time enrolled at an Agra engineering college under the Prime Minister’s Special Scholarship Scheme for J&K students, and Raja Balwant Singh Engineering Technical College’s administration had also rusticated them.

The day they were produced in court Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath had said that those who celebrate Pakistan’s win will be booked for Sedition.

पाक की जीत का जश्न मनाने वालों पर देशद्रोह लगेगा: मुख्यमंत्री श्री @myogiadityanath जी महाराज pic.twitter.com/34DEij8y3t

— Yogi Adityanath Office (@myogioffice) October 28, 2021

Jammu and Kashmir Police had reportedly registered cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against students of medical colleges who “celebrated” Pakistan’s cricket win over India.  Soon after the win online trolling targeting Muslims, including Mohammad Shami, the only Muslim player in the Indian team, had begun in various places. 

The order may be read here.

Related:

Jharkhand: Youths attack Class 9 student for not chanting Jai Shri Ram!
2021: A year of unprecedented communal hate crimes

The post Kashmiri students charged with Sedition for cheering for Pakistan cricketers get bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mumbai Sessions Court has confirmed anticipatory bail to Ameer Ali and Ambadi B, two former students of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) who were among the 51 students booked on charges of Sedition for shouting slogans in support of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam at an LGBTQ rally at Azad Maidan on February 1, 2020.

On September 8, Additional Sessions Judge PP Rajvaidya said, “Anticipatory Bail Application No.276 of 2020 is allowed. Interim order dt.12.02.2020 is hereby made absolute with all the conditions directed therein.”

The order may be read here:

On February 12, 2020, the same Bench had granted interim relief to them from arrest. They were booked under FIR no. 28/2020 under sections 124A (sedition), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code registered at the Azad Maidan Police Station.

On February 6, police officials from the Azad Maidan police station visited the TISS campus and served Ameer and Ambadi a notice to report to the police station under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code for recording their statement. The section empowers the police officer to require the attendance of witnesses.

Their lawyer Vijay Hiremath had argued before the court that they did not participate in any sloganeering in support of Imam, and that they hail from Kerala and do not understand Hindi very well. He contended that they were part of a peaceful gathering of the queer community assembled at Azad Maidan on February 1, 2020 and only waived a blue colour flag which is a symbol of the Dalit community.

ASJ Rajvaidya accepted these arguments and granted anticipatory bail to Ameer and Ambadi on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and were directed to attend the police station whenever summoned by the Police. They were also instructed to submit their mobile numbers, address proof and not leave the country without prior permission of the court.

The order may be read here: 

Another TISS student, Urvashi Chudawala (a transgender rights activist who prefers to go by the name Kris), who was booked under the same FIR had also moved the sessions court in February last year for anticipatory bail. However, on February 5, 2020, ASJ PP Rajvaidya had dismissed their plea by ruling that prima facie, a case of Sedition was made out against them. Kris was alleged to have raised a slogan, “Sharjeel tere sapno ko hum manzil tak pahauchange” (Sharjeel, we will make your dream come true), thereby allegedly instigating people to support secession of the state of Assam from India.

The court said, “Even though, this court is not dealing with the matter or the crime allegedly committed by said Sharjeel, ultimately the impact of the slogan uttered by the applicant in support of said Sharjeel, in my opinion, prima facie, attracts the ingredients of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that the applicant has attempted to bring into hatred or disaffection towards the Government of India especially because, it does not appear that the applicant was not aware of the contents of the speeches by Sharjeel.”

The order may be read here: 

Eventually, the Bombay High Court’s Justice SK Shinde granted Kris anticipatory bail on February 11, 2020. Imam is currently lodged in Tihar Jail for his alleged role in the North East Delhi violence of 2020.

Related:

Sedition charges against 51 including transgender activist for chanting pro-Sharjeel slogans

JNU PhD scholar Sharjeel Imam arrested again, now for Delhi riots

Sharjeel Imam tried to create complete anarchy: Gov’t tells Delhi court

The post Booked for Sedition at LGBTQ rally, two former TISS students get protection from arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The CPI (M) floor leader in Rajya Sabha Elamaram Kareem is likely to introduce a Private Member Bill in Rajya Sabha during the on going Monsoon Session for repealing the offence of sedition from the Indian Penal Code. The law of sedition has indeed become a matter of contention not just for people who are booked for it but also in courts where they find that the offence does not have all the ingredients necessary to comprise an offence of sedition. In most cases, counsels for the accused have argued that sedition is invoked in cases to keep the accused in custody, as the same is cognisable offence, and does not need a warrant for arrest.

Sedition has been a rather hot topic of debate ever since, the Supreme Court bench led by CJI NV Ramana took up a petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A of IPC. He made an oral observation that sedition was a colonial law and that the continuation of such laws after Independence was unfortunate. The petition has been assigned to a three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph and the bench has issued notice in May.

While the court will ultimately decide on the constitutional validity, it would simply make matters simpler if the legislature were to delete the sedition offence from the penal code. However, there is absolute lack of legislative will in this matter and private members bills seldom get passed.

Kerala, which is Kareem’s home state and also a state where CPI (M) has governed since 2016 in continuity. As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Crime in India report of 2019, Kerala had only 4 cases of sedition registered. In June, Kerala High Court had granted bail to filmmaker Aisha Sultana who has been booked for sedition over her remark that the Central government had used Covid-19 as a “bio weapon” against the UT of Lakshadweep. However, when she moved a plea to quash the FIR, the court denied it.

The misuse

The offence of Sedition has been misused by the Government in imprisoning those who differ from the Government point of view, thus negating the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. A plethora of intellectuals, journalists, social activists, writers, tribal sympathizers, etc. have been put behind bars with no scope for bail or quick hearing in Courts. These include, activists as Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, Varavara Rao, Sudha Bhardwaj, Stan Swamy, Umar Khalid, etc. who have been arrested under Sedition/UAPA charges.

The misuse by the government has augmented in the past 6 years and the same is evident from the data collated by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its Crimes in India report released annually. In its 2019 report a conviction rate of mere 3.3% was found in sedition cases.

A comparison of data from 2015 until 2019 shows that there has been a 64% increase in sedition cases registered. The number of cases in 2015 is 30 while in 2019 it has escalated to 93. The numbers have also grown steadily over the years; in 2016 there were 35 cases, in 2017 – 51 cases and 2018 – 70 cases.

Further, if we consider a sum total of some of these parameters, a total of 279 cases have been registered between 2015 and 2019 and trial has been completed in 56 cases but only 5 cases have culminated into conviction.

Court’s stand on sedition

In June, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR filed against journalist Vinod Dua for sedition stating that for offences of Sedition and public mischief, “only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence – are rendered penal.”

Recently, two High Courts, namely, of Punjab & Haryana and Gujarat, granted bail to persons booked under sedition. The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that “freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy”. Gujarat High Court noted that no actual violence or breach of peace occurred and that witness statements do not indicate that any overt act was incited from the public due to actions of the accused.

Related:

Courts unshackle chains of sedition
Manipur activist jailed under NSA for Facebook post criticising BJP
Pathalgadi: Assertion of Adivasi rights over land
Citizens have the right to criticise the Government without inciting violence: SC

The post Will the Private Member Bill to delete sedition from IPC be considered? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 3, in two different cases, two High Courts granted bail to persons booked for sedition while upholding their fundamental rights. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a farmer named Dalbir, while Gujarat HCt granted bail to Pathalgadi movement leader Babita Sukar Kashyap.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Two FIRs were filed against Dalbir and he was booked for sedition and some hate speech related offences under the Indian Penal Code. Both the FIRs stated that Dalbir had given speech with objectionable contents about the Haryana Chief Minister which could have resulted in caste based division creating a threat to the peace and harmony.

The State objected to the bail stating that Dalbir was arrested with great difficulty, and could abscond. While the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was a false implication and he was merely exercising his right to protest and criticise the functioning of the State.

The court refused to consider the merits of the allegations in detail since it was an application for regular bail. The court did observe that “freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy”. The court stated that the nature of contents of the speeches would be subject matter of trial as to whether it was lawful protest.

The court pointed out that investigation being complete, the conclusion of trial would take time and on mere apprehension that bail will be misused, it would not be appropriate to deny the petitioner his personal liberty. The court, thus granted bail to Dalbir subject to furnishing surety/bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs each in both the FIRs.

The complete order may be read here:

In another case, on July 22, the Sirsa Sessions Court granted bail to five farmers who were booked for sedition as well as attempt to murder. The allegation was that the five applicants who were protesting a training camp by BJP workers being held at Choudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, were amongst a group of people who intercepted the vehicle of Ranbir Singh Gangwa, Deputy Speaker, Haryana Government. It was alleged that the protesters raised slogans against the government and attacked the vehicle with ‘Dandas’ of their flag and stones and this incident was also captured on video.

The counsel for the applicants argued that sedition is not attracted in the present case as there is nothing on record that said the incident could have led to overthrow of the State Government, and argued that section 124A of IPC was invoked to increase the gravity of the alleged offence. He further contended that protest and general public opinion against the working of State Government and state machinery does not attract Section 124-A IPC in any manner.

The court agreed with this contention that offence of sedition is doubtful in this case and that at most, section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of IPC is attracted. The court decided to grant bail to the applicant on furnishing their personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety in the like amount each.

The July 27 order may be read here:

Gujarat High Court

Babita Sukar Kashyap was seeking regular bail in the sedition case against her. The FIR stated that the police received intelligence that Babita was involved in instigating the followers of Gujarat’s Sati-Pati cult to resort to violent means in the pursuit of their objectives. It further states that Babita and other accused are instigating the followers of Sati-Pati Cult by wrong interpretation of 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India and Panchayats (Extension of Schedule Areas) Act, 1996.

“She is instigating the tribal populace by claiming that by virtue of provisions of Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Area) and 5th Scheduled of the Constitution, no representative of State or Union Government can enter the village inhibited by tribal, and the laws of Union and State have no applicability in these tribal villages,” alleged the FIR. It was further stated that material seized from her states that the Adivasi Communities need to adopt a path of struggle to counter the open challenges made by the powerful elite communities of depriving the Adivasis of their existential freedom.

“The material obtained from them have stated that the system of pathalgadi by erecting stones are aimed at preventing non-Adivasis from entering the land of the Adivasis and residing there. It also extols the readers to spread the Pathalgadi movement in all village and areas as the primary weapon in the class struggle. They have asked that the movement based on the pathalgadi system to be made into a pan India Adivasi Movement,” states the FIR.

Babita was arrested in July 2020 based on this FIR, and a chargesheet was filed in October 2020. Her counsel argued that the FIR was registered against her due to her antecedent in Jharkhand. However, so far as the similar offences registered against her in Jharkhand is concerned, the Government of Jharkhand has ordered to withdraw all cases which are registered against her in connection with Pathalgadi Movement. He submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 124(A) of the IPC, there must be actual violation of incitement to violence associated with the words and therefore, mere involvement in the movement of Pattalgadi Movement cannot amount to commission of offence.

The State objected to the bail stating that the applicant is provoking tribal community against the Government as well as declares that no Indian laws shall apply to districts/regions of Adivasi areas, and further that no government officers can enter into the Adivasi locality, and provokes the tribal to assault government officers if they enter the tribal regions.

The court took into consideration the fact that she has been in custody since July 2020 and that she has taken legal recourse for her cause seeking directions from the Supreme Court that the government be directed to function as per advice of the Tribes Advisory Council for schedule areas and tribe areas as per provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

The court also noted that no actual violence or breach of peace occurred during her presence in Gujarat, and that witness statements do not indicate that any overt act was incited from the public due to her actions. The court observed that the State could not point out a single event to show that any disturbance whatsoever was caused or has been caused or the public in general was affected in their normal activities on account of her Pathalgadi Movement as alleged in the FIR.

The court allowed the bail application while noting that the applicant has deep roots in society and no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with the evidence /witnesses is expressed. The bail was thus granted and the applicant was ordered to be released on executing a bond of Rs.20,000.

The complete order may be read here:

Bail granted in both cases

Neither of the High Courts delved into the merits of the case. While the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out the fundamental right to freedom of speech, Gujarat High Court made an observation directly correlated to the actions of the applicant. The court made the important observation that no violence had actually taken place and even took into consideration witness statements to ensure itself that no violence was incited due to her words/actions.

Last week, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the validity of section 124A of the IPC which deals with the offence of sedition. The bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice Arun Pillai stated that the court did not have the power to go beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955 whereby a a 5-judge constitution bench had upheld the validity of section 124A of IPC.

The validity of sedition as an offence under IPC is under consideration before the Supreme Court bench led by CJI NV Ramana. He made an oral observation that sedition was a colonial law and that the continuation of such laws after Independence was unfortunate.

Related:

Manipur activist jailed under NSA for Facebook post criticising BJP
Pathalgadi: Assertion of Adivasi rights over land
Citizens have the right to criticise the Government without inciting violence: SC

The post Courts unshackle chains of sedition appeared first on SabrangIndia.