*I*. Under colonial rule, when Indians were subjects, and not citizens, of the British monarchy, any public criticism of the power representing the monarchy by an Indian was, ipso facto, a threat to the state - and thus an act of sedition. Even more so in case of any argument in favour of ending the colonial rule.
*II*. Since Independence, with a "democratic republic" displacing the colonial state, there's a fundamental shift in the equation. In a democratic setup, it's quite unexceptionable - in fact pretty normal, for a citizen to criticise the government of the day and try to change it via lawful means - including open propaganda. *III*. Hence, such criticism etc. - clearly short of an attempt to overthrow the "democratic republic" itself, cannot be legitimately counted as an act of sedition. *IV*. The huge number of pending cases - together with, presumably, very low conviction rates, clearly underlines how the process is punishment. *V*. So, it's absolutely imperative to debar the state from filing such cases - except with detailed solid justification prima facie substantiating the change of attempting to overthrow the state. Let alone arrest, search etc. Nothing less would do. *VI*. The lofty(!) promise of the Union Government as regards review was evidently designed only to get the case derailed for eternity. Its vicious reaction to the extension of the stay granted on operating the law in the interim clearly underlines that. *VII*. It goes to the credit of the highest court of the land that after a considerable gap it, for once, made bold to earn the displeasure of the executive in a significant way - in the process of due discharge of its duties. Has been acknowledged as almost heroic. <<...(I)n our Republic, the State, the government and the executive elected persons – who are servants of the People, not monarchs – are distinct entities. However, it may appear that many politicians, bureaucrats and police personnel in state and central governments are not aware that the State, the government and elected individuals are discrete entities. Criticism of an individual or a government cannot be interpreted as a threat to the State. In 1958, the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab High Court declared Sec.124A void, and struck it down. However, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court, upheld Sec.124A, but read it down, to make sedition applicable only if there is violence or incitement to violence. Today, 162 years later, Sec.124A remains in force. Successive parliaments and central governments have failed to repeal the law, elected governments retain the powers of the erstwhile British Crown. Over the decades, central and state governments have (mis)used Sec.124A to suppress and punish dissent and freedom of speech and expression, not unlike the British. FIRs based on Sec.124A, have been filed, accusing people demonstrating peacefully, or dissenting with government policies, etc., or making “derogatory” comments about ministers by words or cartoons, and even against persons who were yet to make a statement/joke or make a report. None of these can reasonably be interpreted as incitement to violence, but governments view these as seditious threats to governments or the State. Reportedly, sedition charges were filed against 13,000 people between 2010 and 2021, and most of them languish in jail, for nothing more than exercising their freedom of speech and expression. According to MHA data, in 2019 alone 93 sedition cases were registered, and analysis of NCRB data shows that from 2016 to 2019, sedition cases increased by 160% while the rate of conviction fell from 33.3% to 3.3%. ... There are nine petitions challenging the Sedition law, clubbed together for consideration of the Supreme Court, with Union of India (UoI) as Respondent. Until 7 May 2022, during hearings, UoI was arguing in defence of the law. However, on 9 May, UoI altered its stance. UoI’s Affidavit filed in Court, stated that although “there are [sic] divergence of views expressed in the public domain”, the need for the law was “generally accepted by everyone in legitimate state interest” [of] “dealing with serious offenses ... affecting the [country’s] very sovereignty and integrity”. UoI’s Affidavit also stated that “Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has ... expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of protecting civil liberties” ... and “we need to ... shed colonial baggage [the Sedition law]”. Accordingly, the government “has decided to re-examine and re-consider” the law “before the Competent Forum”, and the “Court may not invest time in examining the validity of Sec.124A once again ... and await the exercise of reconsideration ... before an appropriate forum”. The Court observed in its Interim Order that UoI agreed that “the rigors of Sec.124A ... is not in tune with the current social milieu” ... since Sec.124A pre-dates the Constitution and ... “was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime”. Further, that “till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments' '.>> (Excerpted from: < https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/4/21872/Sedition-and-the-Law >.) [The author is one of the petitioners before the Supreme Court and a retired Major General.] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZi1BxJbg-csSuG85EvQFraNiNkaxrVHnLFhtxe9T8L0pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
