<p>The Law Commission has done a disservice to the people of the country by not only proposing retention of the sedition clause in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but recommending enhanced punishment for sedition. It has argued that repealing Section 124A, which is the sedition clause, can have “serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country”. The commission was responding to the government’s request for its views on the matter. It has also proposed some amendments in the penal provisions, such as mandatory preliminary investigation and some procedural safeguards. It has submitted its report about a year after the government had told the Supreme Court that it would re-examine the sedition law.</p>.<p>Following the government’s assurance, the court had directed both central and state governments to refrain from registering any FIR under Section 124A, and suspended all ongoing proceedings under the sedition law. The court had asked the government why it was not repealing a colonial-era law that had been used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. This is particularly relevant because in recent years, the law has been wielded indiscriminately against many, including Opposition leaders, critics of the government, activists and journalists, in a bid to silence dissent and punish criticism. The commission’s opinion is totally regressive and degrades the right to free speech which is the basic norm of a democracy. It has sought to make the law more stringent by increasing punishment from three years to seven years. The Supreme Court had directed that the provisions can only be invoked in cases where alleged seditious acts lead to, or tend to lead to, violence or public disorder. But the commission’s proposed amendments go beyond that. According to them, even the ‘tendency’ to incite violence is to be punishable even if no such violence occurs. This would make the law more draconian because the police would decide if there was a ‘tendency’. </p>.<p>The commission has acted like a mouthpiece of the government rather than as an expert body rendering wise counsel to the government. One main reason for the commission’s hawkish stance is what it calls the “ever-proliferating” social media and the activities of the Maoists and the militants in the North-East and Kashmir. These are the arguments of the government also, which has shown a tendency to dub even civil society activists and Opposition leaders as “urban Naxals” and “tukde tukde” gang and sought to silence them with the sedition law. Ironically, the previous Law Commission had in a consultation paper in 2018 sought a review or repeal of the sedition law. Many democratic countries, including the UK, have removed sedition as an offence from the statute book. India should follow that. Hopefully the Supreme Court will stick to the right view. </p>
<p>The Law Commission has done a disservice to the people of the country by not only proposing retention of the sedition clause in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but recommending enhanced punishment for sedition. It has argued that repealing Section 124A, which is the sedition clause, can have “serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country”. The commission was responding to the government’s request for its views on the matter. It has also proposed some amendments in the penal provisions, such as mandatory preliminary investigation and some procedural safeguards. It has submitted its report about a year after the government had told the Supreme Court that it would re-examine the sedition law.</p>.<p>Following the government’s assurance, the court had directed both central and state governments to refrain from registering any FIR under Section 124A, and suspended all ongoing proceedings under the sedition law. The court had asked the government why it was not repealing a colonial-era law that had been used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. This is particularly relevant because in recent years, the law has been wielded indiscriminately against many, including Opposition leaders, critics of the government, activists and journalists, in a bid to silence dissent and punish criticism. The commission’s opinion is totally regressive and degrades the right to free speech which is the basic norm of a democracy. It has sought to make the law more stringent by increasing punishment from three years to seven years. The Supreme Court had directed that the provisions can only be invoked in cases where alleged seditious acts lead to, or tend to lead to, violence or public disorder. But the commission’s proposed amendments go beyond that. According to them, even the ‘tendency’ to incite violence is to be punishable even if no such violence occurs. This would make the law more draconian because the police would decide if there was a ‘tendency’. </p>.<p>The commission has acted like a mouthpiece of the government rather than as an expert body rendering wise counsel to the government. One main reason for the commission’s hawkish stance is what it calls the “ever-proliferating” social media and the activities of the Maoists and the militants in the North-East and Kashmir. These are the arguments of the government also, which has shown a tendency to dub even civil society activists and Opposition leaders as “urban Naxals” and “tukde tukde” gang and sought to silence them with the sedition law. Ironically, the previous Law Commission had in a consultation paper in 2018 sought a review or repeal of the sedition law. Many democratic countries, including the UK, have removed sedition as an offence from the statute book. India should follow that. Hopefully the Supreme Court will stick to the right view. </p>