Editorial: Sedition in new avatar

A closer look at the proposed legislation reveals that the colonial-era provision is, in fact, making its way back

Sedition by any other name sounds equally draconian in its intent and scope of application. Though union Home Minister Amit Shah claimed in Parliament, while introducing three Bills replacing the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act, that the sedition law would be removed, a closer look at the proposed legislation reveals that the colonial-era provision is, in fact, making its way back with a new name and even harsher punishment. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which will replace the IPC, proposes to have a provision that punishes ‘acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India’ with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years and a fine. The offence of sedition has been retained under the draft law with a new nomenclature and a more expansive definition of what will constitute “acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, even as it removes the words “disaffection towards the Government established by law in India” from the old Section 124A of the IPC. It is incongruous for a liberal and free democratic country to have a sedition law, in any form and nomenclature that fights its own citizens. The Centre has claimed that the replacement of the old laws was part of an overhaul of the criminal justice system, two decades after Justice VS Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System submitted its report to the Home Ministry. However, the government should tread cautiously while redrafting the substantive criminal law.

The wording of Section 150 of the new Bill — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — raises apprehensions that the essence of sedition may persist under a new guise. By making any act endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India an offence, the new law seeks to take within its sweep almost everything, including a speech, a book or an article, a drama or an act — everything that Section 124A of the IPC currently penalises as sedition. Formulated during British rule to suppress the freedom struggle, it is now being widely misused against dissenters. It is ironic that the United Kingdom abolished the offence of sedition in 2009 after it had become obsolete for many years. In May last year, the apex court put on hold trial in all sedition cases pending before courts across the country until the government completes its promised exercise to re-examine and reconsider the provisions of the offence of sedition. It had also directed that all those in jail on sedition charges could approach the court for bail. In recent times, there have been several instances of arbitrary and unjustified use of draconian provisions on ordinary citizens. In 1962, the SC ruled that sedition charges could not be invoked against a citizen for criticism of government actions as it would be in conformity with the freedom of speech and expression.

---