Law panel mooted repeal of sedition law in 2018

The Supreme Court’s recent views on repealing sedition law are similar to the ones expressed in 2018 by the Law Commission of India. Following the recommendations of the law panel, the home ministry held consultation with state governments and Union Territories, as law and order is a state subject. Majority of states, however, were of the view that the law had to be retained without changes. Two years ago, in reply to a question during the monsoon session of Parliament, MoS Nityanand Rai said in a written response that “there is no proposal to scrap the provision under the IPC dealing with the offence of sedition. The IPC provision needs to be retained to effectively combat anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements.” Incidentally, NIA invokes UAPA in cases related to terrorism.When asked about the SC’s latest observation, a senior government official said: “MHA has set up a committee to examine overhaul of IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act. The five-member panel will look into all suggestions including amendments to Section 124 A of IPC, hate speech and rape laws.” The committee, set up last year, is expected to submit its report soon. The law panel under BS Chauhan had in 2018 come up with a consultation paper evoking a meaningful debate on sedition. It spelled out a host of issues which required consideration. “In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection towards their country in their own way. For doing the same, one might indulge in constructive criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the government,” the panel’s consultation paper said.“Expressions used in such thoughts might be harsh and unpleasant to some, but that does not render the actions to be branded seditious. Section 124A should be invoked only in cases where the intention behind any act is to disrupt public order or to overthrow a government with violence and illegal means. Every irresponsible exercise of the right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious. For merely expressing a thought that is not in consonance with the policy of the government of the day, a person should not be charged under the section”.The commission further opined “expression of frustration over the state of affairs, for instance, calling India ‘no country for women‘, or ‘a country that is racist‘ for its obsession with skin colour as a marker of beauty are critiques that do not threaten‘ the idea of a nation. Berating the country or a particular aspect of it, cannot and should not be treated as sedition. If the country is not open to positive criticism, there lies little difference between the pre- and post-independence eras,” it said.The right to criticise one‘s own history and the ‘right to offend‘ are rights protected under free speech, the panel said. While it is essential to protect national integrity, it should not be misused as a tool to curb free speech. Dissent and criticism are essential ingredients of a robust public debate on policy issues as part of vibrant democracy. Therefore, every restriction on free speech and expression must be carefully scrutinised to avoid unwarranted restrictions, the consultation paper said. To deliberate on the issue, the panel listed several questions, which included the need to retain Section 124 of IPC. Should sedition be “not redefined” in India considering that the right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy ensured as a Fundamental Rights by our Constitution.

from Economic Times https://ift.tt/2VMakCd