Editorial: Sedition law: A reprieve from SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday restrained the Centre and States from registering First Information Reports (FIRs), continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under the 152-year-old sedition law, Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code.

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana directed that no new FIRs should be filed for sedition and all pending cases should be on hold while the government reconsiders the law.

The Supreme Court’s welcome order comes at a time when the colonial-era law is being used right, left and centre across the country against journalists, politicians, students and ordinary citizens.

For example, six sedition cases were charged during the protests against farm laws, 25 during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, 22 after Hathras gang rape and 27 cases after the Pulwama attack. This shows how governments are blatantly using the law against critics and dissenters.

The clause allows arrest without a warrant if a person is accused of anti-government activities.

Data analysis by the website, Article 14, shows a 28% increase in the number of sedition cases filed each year between 2014 and 2020 compared to the yearly average between 2010 and 2014.

According to the website, 96% of sedition cases filed against 405 Indians for criticising politicians and governments over the last decade were registered after 2014. Of them, 149 were accused of making critical and/or derogatory remarks against PM Modi, 144 against Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath.

Of the five states with the highest number of sedition cases, a majority were registered during the BJP’s time in power in four states — Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Jharkhand.

Only 13 out of more than 13,000 accused were found guilty of sedition. This means that the conviction rate is less than 0.1%.

The sedition law was originally used to curb political dissent during the Independent movement and it was charged against freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat, Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad and Mahatma Gandhi.

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was a strong opponent of the archaic law. During his speech in Parliament on May 29, 1951, he stated that Section 124-A was highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place in India both for practical and historical reasons. His strong statement was enough to understand the threat the law posed. “The sooner we get rid of it the better,” he had said.

In fact, our Supreme Court was responsible for retaining the sedition clause despite strong political opposition. The Constituent Assembly had dropped the word sedition, but the Supreme Court restored it, citing obsolete English cases.

With Wednesday’s order, the Supreme Court appears to have made amends to its earlier decision. But the concerns do not end here. While celebrating the 75 years of Independence, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggested that India should work harder to shed outdated laws. So the government should take immediate measures to scrap the archaic law to win people’s confidence.