Law panel is wrong, sedition law must go

Law Commission Chairman Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi has sought to buttress the arguments in the commission’s report that surprisingly recommended retention and strengthening of the sedition law rather than its scrapping. Justice Awasthi’s explanations are not new and are only elaborations of the arguments in the report. It is unfortunate that the commission failed to take into account that the Constitution seeks to expand citizens’ rights and freedoms from that which existed under colonial rule. It also ignored the clear signal from the Supreme Court when the court stopped short of striking down the sedition law but suspended its operation, allowing the government to review its own position on the law. The result is that the commission has prepared a report that is closer to what the government wanted than to the Supreme Court’s thinking.

Justice Awasthi cited the same flawed arguments that the commission had presented. He says there are serious threats to national security now and so the law must be retained. But the government itself has claimed that, under it, the security situation in the country, including in Kashmir, has greatly improved and is normal. Sedition law is often used to curb free speech and to punish critics of the government. The commission says it is not the law but the police that should be blamed for this. But the police will still be able to misuse the law and it will misuse it more because the commission has recommended strengthening of the law and enhancement of punishment. Under the existing law, only speech that incites public disorder is considered sedition. But the commission says even a “tendency” to incite violence or cause public disorder should constitute sedition. It explains it as a “mere inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder rather than proof of actual violence.” ‘Tendency’ and ‘inclination’ are vague words that can be interpreted by the government and the police the way they want. The commission also ignores the fact that there are enough provisions in the IPC to deal with offences against the State.

The commission’s report does not take into consideration many recent judgements of the court upholding freedom of speech and expression and other constitutional rights, including the right to privacy. The sedition law is a colonial law framed in1860 against freedom fighters, but the commission justifies it by saying, “the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy.” The law has been scrapped even in Britain. Justice Awasthi says the law is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). But it is a fact that the reasons for its use have mostly been unsound and political. The commission only loses its credibility by pleading such a wrong case.