On Thursday while the Chief Justice of India, N V Ramana was making the observation that the “sedition law which was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi was still needed after 75 years of Independence”, the Haryana Police booked 100 farmers on sedition charge. All the farmers were charged with sedition for allegedly obstructing public servants in discharge of their duty, murderous attempt on an elected representative and damaging public property

The Sirsa police on Thursday arrested five people days after lodging an FIR, which included a sedition charge, over an alleged attack on the Haryana deputy speaker's car during a farmers' protest. Ever since the farmers announced their programme to oppose the BJP leaders, the Haryana police has been resorting to all kinds of dirty tactics to harass and coerce them.

This action of the Haryana police makes it explicit that they have turned subservient to their political masters that have forgotten the basic principle of keeping the eyes and ears open. The chief of Haryana police may argue that the Supreme Court is yet to declare the law as invalid. Till it is done, the law is valid and the police can use it. But being a senior cop he should have been aware that the Supreme Court has already taken up a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law. He could have asked his men to maintain utter restraint.

Moreover the farmers have already announced their agitational plan long back. They have been resorting to peaceful Satyagrah. The BJP leadership are deliberately provoking them. The action of police of framing the farmers under sedition is nothing but a serious threat of misuse of sedition law, as was observed by the CJI-led bench, “The enormous power of misuse of this section 124-A it’s like giving a carpenter a saw...he cuts down the forest. That’s the power of misuse of this law.”

The Supreme Court also raised concern that there was no accountability. But in the Sirsa case there is no accountability. The police used it to break the moral of the farmers and scare them. In this backdrop the observation of court is worth recalling; “Our concern is the misuse of this law and the accountability of agencies in using it. There is a serious threat of misuse.”

There is no denying that there is a need to take into account the "march of the times and the development of the law" before dealing with Section 124-A. Earlier, a separate bench of the SC had sought response from the Centre on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of sedition law, filed by two journalists.

The police is not content with filing sedition charges against 100 farmers. It is getting ready to implicate more farmers who were present near the site on Sunday. It claims that they have been identified and further action will depend on to what extent their involvement. It is worth noting that the state government had taken a serious view of the incident and it replaced district police chief Bhupender Singh with Dr Arpit Jain while suspending an Inspector-rank official.

The farmers were framed under sedition only after deputy speaker Ranbir Gangwa complained that these people had pelted his vehicle with stones. He holds; "They cannot be called farmers. I can say those who attacked looked like addicts.”

The primary reason for Modi government not rescinding the law is this has been the most effective instrument to silence the critics or those resorting to Satyagrah. What happened in Sirsa is nothing but misuse of the law. In fact the bench headed by Chief justice N V Ramana and comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said the main concern was about the "misuse of law", and asked as to why the Centre, which is repealing stale laws, was not getting rid of this provision.

The top court described the law as "a serious threat" to the functioning of institutions. "There is enormous power of misuse. We can compare it to the carpenter, instead of cutting wood, cutting the forest itself. That is the effect of this law," the CJI observed. He added that there was "minimal conviction or very low rate of conviction" in the history of the law.

The Supreme Court's observation came days after Justice D.Y. Chandrachud made similar comments saying that criminal laws, including anti-terror legislations, should not be misused to quell dissent or harass citizens.

The sedition law under IPC Section 124A is being frequently used by the central and state governments to stifle any view critical of the dispensation in power. There has also been a growing tendency to brand as “anti-national” dissenters and people expressing views contrary to those of the government.

The police administration prefers to forget that sedition law has no place in a modern democracy. It is born of an authoritarian mindset and fixation with order. It has been done away with in most of the world. It is a fact that section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, or the sedition law, is the illegitimate child of two fathers; one is monarchy and the other a fixation with “order”. A monarch lives in perpetual fear of an overthrow — hence the desire to quash dissent by not permitting it to be even uttered.

Fortunately this is for the first time a sitting judge of the Supreme Court D Y Chandrachud has publicly “questioned” this questionable law. Implicating anyone under sedition has become the fashion of the day. The Indian police system and structure still nurses the old feudal notions and system. It is unwilling to being about a change in its behaviour. Else there was no reason that at a time the Supreme Court is engaged in hotly debating the issue Sirsa police should ignore it.

The UK has already done away with sedition as has the US and most of the world. India is armed with a spate of laws that can deal with the issues that the sedition law was supposed to deal with. Why then continue with a law which requires reading intent into words? They could have charged the farmers under some other law. But did not do it as they were not sure whether it would have chilling effect on the farmers.

The careless functioning of the police could be understood from yet another incident. Though Section 66A of the IT Act has been scrapped long back, the police continues to frame innocent people under it. Only on Monday the Supreme Court expressed concern on being told that more than 1,000 cases have been filed invoking Section 66A of the IT Act - a controversial law that allowed authorities to arrest individuals for posting "offensive" content online - despite it being struck down seven years ago. The three-member bench of Justices R Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai expressed shock and said, "Amazing. What is going on is terrible. It is shocking. We will issue notice”. Sec 66A was struck down on March 24, 2014.

Emphasising the four principles of the rule of law, the CJI said the first principle embodies that “laws must be clear and accessible”. “This is the fundamental point that when laws are expected to be obeyed, the people at least ought to know what the laws are. There cannot therefore be secretive laws, as laws are for the society.”“Another implication of this principle is that they should be worded in simple, unambiguous language,” he said. Members of society, he said, have the “right to participate in the creation and refinement of laws” that regulate their behaviours.

The CJI emphasized on the legal system's ability to 'apply checks on governmental power and action' and enforce the rule of law. He asserted that the judiciary needed “complete freedom” from any extraneous influence to be “able to apply checks on governmental power and action” and enforce the rule of law. The CJI said an “unjust law” might not have the same moral legitimacy as a “just law”, but it might still command the obedience of some sections of the society to the detriment of others.

Justice Ramana noted that during colonial rule the British used the law as a tool of political repression; “It was an enterprise famous for ‘rule by law’, rather than “rule of law” as it aimed at controlling the Indian subjects. Judicial remedies lost their significance as they were administered keeping in view the best interests of the colonial power, rather than what was just or legal”.

The observation of justice Chandrachud has been more than word of caution for the police and politicians; “Don’t misuse laws to quell dissent or harass citizens. The apex court plays the role of a counter-majoritarian institution whose duty is to protect the rights of socio-economic minorities”. (IPA Service)