Sedition, which used to be historical milestones, such as Maratha warrior Shivji’s call to overthrow British rule, with the passage of time and perception changes has rather become a joke.

The sedition law has been a relic of colonial legacy, although courts in Independent India have upheld the ‘offence’. The British used it to protect the Empire, although modern day England frowned upon is use as a threat to democracy. The colonial government justified enlarging the ambit of laws on sedition in its colonies, clearly reflecting a tendency to use sedition to suppress any kind of criticism.

The British parliament abolished sedition as an offence in 2009, reasoning that sedition and seditious and defamatory libel were arcane offences with no place in an era where freedom of expression is considered sacrosanct. But like in many other instances, India is yet to catch up on more progressive ideas.

Sedition law has become a dangerous tool in the hands of governments like the present one under Prime Minister Modi with its zero tolerance of dissent and invoking of sedition has become an obnoxious daily occurrence.

That the laws against sedition are the very antithesis of freedom of speech is well-established. Until not long ago, free speech had been widely acknowledged as one of the most significant principles of democracy even in India. The purpose of this freedom is to “allow an individual to attain self-fulfilment, assist in discovery of truth, strengthen the capacity of a person to take decisions and facilitate a balance between stability and social change.”

It has been argued on behalf of the opponents of sedition laws that even without section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which mandates punishment of seditious offences, there are enough constitutional and statutory safeguards to prevent disaffection against the government being promoted among the people. But successive governments have caused the difference between disaffection and disapproval to disappear for the purpose of acting against individuals and groups.

Courts in India have on several occasions tried to restrict the scope of sedition laws and have held that until and unless the speech or action leads to public disorder or a reasonable anticipation or likelihood of it, it cannot be termed seditious.

It has been held that the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency.

It has also been stressed time and again that democracy is not another name of majoritarianism and that it is a system to include every voice, where the thought of every person is counted, irrespective of the number of the people backing that idea. In a democracy, it is natural that there will be different and conflicting interpretation of a given account of an event.

Not only viewpoints which constitute the majority are to be considered, but at the same time, dissenting and critical opinions should also be acknowledged.

Free speech is considered as the foundation of a democratic society. A free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints, dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing view points, debating and forming one shown views and expressing them are all integral to the survival of true democracy.

The courts have held that holding an opinion against the Prime Minister or his actions or criticism of the actions of government cannot be considered as sedition under Section 124A of the IPC as criticism of the government is the hallmark of democracy.

But ever since the Modi government came to power, we have been seeing a tendency to treat each of these activities as seditious. Anyone speaking a word against the government or its policy is treated as a traitor and sedition laws slapped against him or her. The people must thank their luck that the ruling party leaders have stopped short of terming electoral choices by people as seditious.

The attitude of the ruling dispensation amounts not only to an inability to learn from history, but betrays a false sense of longevity and security. The ruling party would do well to remember that whatever they are accusing its opponents of doing could very well be used against its leaders when they are out of power. (IPA Service)