law commission recommendation That crime of treason With some safeguards retained in the penal law, it flies in the face of current judicial and political thinking that the country may no longer need this colonial relic. IPC Section 124A, which describes sedition, seeks to punish speech or writing which brings or attempts to bring about hatred or contempt of the Government established by law, or excites or tends to excite disaffection does. Its validity was upheld by the Supreme Court until 1962, but with the reservation that it would be a constitutionally permissible restriction on freedom of expression, only if the offense was limited to words that tend to incite violence or create public disorder. Used to keep However, legal experts have pointed out that the panel’s report fails to consider how far free speech jurisprudence has traveled since then. Last year, while keeping the pending cases of sedition in abeyance, the Court had observed that “the harshness of Section 124A of the IPC is not in consonance with the present social climate”. The Central Government had also decided to re-examine and reconsider the provision. The time has come to consider the provision in the light of recent theories to examine the legality of any restriction on fundamental rights, especially free speech. Given its broad nature, the definition of sedition cannot escape such scrutiny.
The commission sought to address two concerns commonly raised about sedition: its widespread misuse and its relevance in present times. It reiterated the well-worn argument that misuse of law is no ground for withdrawing it. What it has failed to consider, however, is that its existence on statute gives great scope for its unfair use, often with the intention of suppressing dissent and imprisoning critics. It is doubtful whether a mere requirement of prior permission, as suggested in the report, or a mandatory preliminary inquiry, would reduce the cases of sedition. Furthermore, the panel has argued that the fact that something is a colonial-era provision is no ground to dismiss it. It has justified the need to have sedition on the penal statute citing various extremist and separatist movements and trends in the country as well as the “ever-increasing role of social media in propagating radicalisation”. This may not be a sufficient reason to retain it, as divisive propaganda, incitement to violence and slander affecting social harmony can be prevented by other penal provisions. In fact, an effective legal framework against hate speech is one that requires more than one to punish speech or writing that targets the government. Despite the report, the government should consider repealing the provision.