ARTICLE 19(1)(a) VS. §124A OF I.P.C
THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL VOLUME:- 4 ISSUE NO:- 4 , OCTOBER 18, 2023 ARTICLE 19(1)(a) VS. §124A OF I.P.C Connecting Sedition And The Fundamental Right To Speech And Expression Vishnu Priya B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) NALSAR University Of Law Abstract This paper explains how Sedition, which has been a contentious issue, stifles the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a). This analysis focuses on the historical connotation of §124A of the Indian Penal Code that deals with Sedition, keeping in perspective the need and intention behind bringing this law up. This study tries to maintain the balance between protecting national interests and the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of various case laws and jurisprudence and throws light on the rights of the citizens. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the implementation of Sedition law and how it is used as a political tool in the age of democracy that results in intense infringement upon the fundamental rights of the citizens Keywords Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution 124 of the Indian Penal Code Democratic values and ethos & Violence against the State Vinod Dua case, Kedar Nath case, Toolkit case, Introduction To provide a context for this paper, the analysis is laid upon Sedition, which is a section in I.P.C. used to punish people who invoke violent rebellion against the Government and upon Article 19 of the Indian Constitution that strives to protect the freedom of Citizens to freely express and speak in the ‘Democracy’ which works for the people, by the people, and of the people. By acknowledging that Fundamental Rights are not absolute and come with certain limitations and restrictions, the paper reminds us of the fact that this section is no longer used for national interests; instead, it became a political tool to stifle political dissent. By uplifting the democratic values and ethos, it must be realized that the views of the Demos will be the backbone of the democracy! To realize this fundamental truth, a shield is provided to protect the liberties of people; Article 19 was drafted. In a wider context, the dynamic between sedition laws and Article 19 has given rise to important questions regarding the delicate balance between the government’s power to preserve law and order and the freedom of citizens to express their views without the threat of prosecution. Historical Background Of Sedition The origins of the sedition law within the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be traced back to the colonial era when the IPC was first introduced in 1860 under British rule. Section 124A, specifically addressing seditious activities, was incorporated with the primary aim of quelling dissent and thwarting challenges to British colonial authority.1 During that period, the British colonial administration frequently encountered opposition and protests from Indian nationalists who were advocating for independence and self- governance. Section 124A was introduced as a means to stifle dissent and categorize those advocating for freedom as seditious individuals. The underlying objective of introducing the sedition law into the IPC was essentially to safeguard the interests of the colonial government by suppressing any form of protest, criticism, or opposition. The British authorities aimed to maintain control and order in India, deeming any expression of dissent as a direct threat to their dominion. Consequently, Section 124A was employed as a tool to target individuals or groups who dared to voice objections against the British government, its policies, or its actions. Although the colonial era concluded with India’s attainment of independence in 1947, Section 124A remained embedded in the IPC, and independent India retained this provision. Over the years, this law has been invoked in various instances, sparking debates about its relevance and its alignment with the principles of a democratic society. Critics argue that the sedition law can be vulnerable to abuse, allowing the suppression of legitimate dissent and encroaching upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, a right enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The wording of s.124A effectively criminalizes any form of expression or behavior that may be perceived as fostering contempt or disaffection toward the government. This lack of precision creates opportunities for abuse and selective application, often targeting political adversaries. Over the years, governments have employed the sedition law selectively to suppress voices critical of the ruling regime, particularly singling out activists, journalists, and political opponents. Originally intended to quell anti- colonial sentiments during the colonial era, the sedition law has since been transformed into a tool for stifling dissent in independent India. Its wide-reaching language and unclear provisions have made it susceptible to misapplication, intensifying concerns about striking a balance between national security and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democratic society. 1 Indian Penal Code, 1860, §124A. When Can A Person Be Arrested Under Sedition? It was held in Zakir Hussian vs. Union Territory of Ladakh that a person could be arrested under §124A when it is established that the words, whether spoken or written, along with signs or visible depictions, had the potential or the purpose of inciting public turmoil or the disturbance of public tranquility through the provocation of unlawful conduct.2 Procedural guidelines were laid down by the court in this court when charges are imposed on an individual under §124A. An individual may face arrest for sedition under the following circumstances: Expressing Hatred or Contempt: If a person, through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations, fosters a sense of hatred or contempt toward the legally established Indian government, they may be subject to sedition charges. Inciting Disaffection: When an individual’s expressions, in any form, are perceived as an effort to provoke disaffection, which entails feelings of disloyalty or disapproval, against the Indian government, it can result in a sedition arrest. In brief, in India, an individual may face sedition charges if their words or deeds are perceived as stirring