Need to protect civil liberties
Certain laws under the Indian Penal Code, such as the sedition law and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, are draconian and must be done away with
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to keep the sedition law in abeyance on the face of the ruling BJP Government’s willingness to reconsider the repeal of the colonial law has, once again, brought this issue to the forefront. The law of sedition was inserted into the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870, soon after the British Government took over direct control over India and 10 years after the IPC was enforced in 1860. It was covered under Sections 121 to 124 in Chapter VI entitled “Of offences against the State” dealing with the offence of waging war against the Queen. The colonial masters were apprehensive of Indians after the declaration of the 1857 War of Independence.
Consequently, Section 124-A was carefully worded to cover bringing or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or attempt to “incite disaffection towards the Government” established by law for punishment with transformation of life. The scope was broadened by including into its ambit “disloyalty” and “feeling of enmity” against the Government and also comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government to obtain alteration by lawful means if accompanied by excitement or attempt to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. The British Government’s objective was to keep the Indians subjugated and to maintain and expand their rule of exploitation. These penal provisions facilitated in crushing people’s movement to deprive them of their civil rights and keep them subjected and subdued.
After attaining Independence, the scenario experienced a sea change. India adopted a Constitution with strong democratic traditions ensuring civil liberties by providing fundamental rights to its citizens. Now, people had the right to criticise the Government, put forth their views and get them accepted through democratic means. The workers, farmers and other sections of society could freely raise their voice, oppose adverse decisions and seek policy changes. Opposition parties representing different shades of public opinion were formed to articulate their views. The institution of free media emerged as a powerful tool to critically appraise Government policies and actions.
Earlier, the British Government needed Section 124-A to sustain its colonisation but now, in a free country, it was no longer required. The scope of free speech and right to expression in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution further strengthened the democratic rights of the citizens and restricted the validity of Section 124-A. Although there are enough provisions to deal with communal and defamatory acts and speeches which incite violence but, over the years, the ruling Governments have lodged a series of cases under the sedition law against crusaders on flimsy grounds to serve their purpose of curbing dissent.
Indians have spent nearly 3 million hours in prison on charges of sedition since 2010.The accused spend up to 50 days in trial courts and 200 days in High Courts in prisons until courts grant bail. The data generated by Article 14 duly corroborated by NCRB reveals that more than 13,000 Indians are trapped in prisons. During the last seven years, 2,862 citizens were charged with sedition during the anti-CAA protests; 133 farmers during the farm protest of 2021; 42 persons after the Pulwama attack and 59 journalists were charged with sedition for reportage on the farm Bills, COVID-19, Hathras gang rape for being critical of the Government. Each year, there has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of sedition cases. It is an alarming situation and makes one suspicious of the Government’s intentions.
Besides the law of sedition, another draconian law has more stringent and far-reaching implications. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was passed in free India with the purpose of providing more teeth to law-enforcement agencies to act against anti-national elements, terrorists and communal forces. In the past, the UAPA has been used along with sedition law to curb the voices of dissent. In case of sedition law, the accused are entitled to certain safeguards and constitutional remedies like easy bail, provision of anticipatory bail and the police have to file a charge sheet within 90 days, failing which the accused arrested is entitled to bail whereas UAPA permits detention without any charge sheet for 180 days, creates a presumption of guilt, places the burden of proof on the accused and creates a strong presumption against bail. Although the arrest rate under sedition law is on the rise, the conviction rate is low at 2.25 per cent. During 2014-20, of the 399 cases, only nine were convicted. As per the NCRB data, UAPA is better placed in terms of conviction rate. During 2014-2020, 27.5 per cent of the cases saw conviction.
Both these draconian laws are not desirable in an evolving democracy like India. As retired Justice Manmohan Singh says: “UAPA contains many aspects of the sedition law with far-reaching consequences.” The removal of sedition law would not serve the purpose until and unless the UAPA provisions are not diluted. We already have sufficient provisions in our judicial system to take care of offences of all nature. What is required is honest and effective implementation and total freedom for our law-enforcement agencies to discharge their duty.
(The writer is a senior journalist and Chairman, Panwar Group of Institutions, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The views expressed are personal.)
Source: The Pioneer
