Section 124A IPC of Sedition, is being discussed in the Supreme Court of india

 #law

 It is very interesting, the intervention of the Supreme Court on the sedition law

 Section 124A IPC of Sedition, is being discussed in the Supreme Court.  Suddenly the Supreme Court discussing this law and standing up to fulfill its constitutional obligation on the misuse of this law by the executive is like a pleasant surprise.  After 2014, every citizen who is a legitimate critic of the government has come to be seen as sedition.  However, in recent years, the misuse of this provision has increased a lot.  Not only this law but also the National Security Act (NSA) UAPA is being misused badly for political gains.  Not only this, more than 1300 cases have been registered in the country against Section 66A of the IT Act which has been declared illegal by the court.  These cases are registered on those people who speak their mind through media or social media under their fundamental right, freedom of expression.  The Supreme Court has also dismissed the case filed against senior journalist Vinod Dua.  Many cases have also been registered against Surya Pratap Singh, a retired IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh.  The motive of the government is clear that, it wants to either suppress or adapt every voice that reaches its ears in the form of criticism.  This trend is undemocratic and also dictatorial.

 "Sedition is a colonial law which was used by the British government to suppress the freedom struggle. Even today after 75 years of independence, is there a need for such a law?"

  The CJI has asked this question to the Solicitor General.  And this question is also relevant on the misuse of law in today's time.  Now whether the government gives the answer to the court through its Solicitor General, it will be known only later.  But the misuse of sedition law must be stopped.

 Now let's look at the details of the sedition cases registered in the last years.

 A total of 6 cases of sedition were registered during the farmers' movement.

 A total of 25 cases of sedition were registered during the CAA agitation.

 After the Hathras gangrape in UP, a total of 27 cases of sedition were registered.

 96% of the 405 sedition cases filed since 2014 are those in which a political leader has been criticized.

 Out of these, 149 are cases in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been criticized.

 There are 144 registered cases in which Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has been criticized.

 The number of cases registered in these cases is 28%, which have been registered against the guidelines of the Supreme Court.

 Most of the sedition cases have been registered in the context of various movements going on in the country.  For example, in BJP ruled states, 3700 people were booked for sedition for participating in the CAA movement.

 Out of 5 states that have registered maximum sedition cases, 4 states, Bihar, UP, Karnataka and Jharkhand are BJP ruled.  Jharkhand has become a non-BJP ruled state.

 Out of 115 sedition cases registered in Uttar Pradesh since 2010, 77% belong to Yogi Adityanath's tenure.

 The Indian judicial system has evolved from the British judicial system.  The Indian criminal justice system was founded in 1861 by three laws, Indian Penal Code IPC or Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act i.e. Indian Evidence Act.  It was at this time that the Indian Police Act was codified as an important part of the criminal justice system, which marked the beginning of the modern police system.

 For the present form of 124A, credit should be given to the great freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak.  Tilak was called by the British as the father of Indian discontent or the Father of Indian Unrest.  A trial on him in 1897 gave rise to this section in the debate of sedition versus sedition.  This section was made cognizable and non-bailable.

 Read this section first.

 "Whoever, by words spoken or written or by signs, or by representation or otherwise, causes, or attempts to cause, or attempts to incite displeasure to the Government established by law in India, or attempts to incite  shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine.

 By 1870, ie 9 years after the IPC was codified, this section was added to the IPC.  However, this idea came up in the 1835 draft panel code prepared by Lord Thomas Macaulay.  When this section was added, the purpose of its addition was to suppress any kind of public dissatisfaction against the British Raj, which used to emerge somewhere in the country even after successfully suppressing the revolt of 1857.  In 1870 this section was added to the IPC.

 The first case under Section 124A IPC was registered in 1891 against the editor of Bangobasi, a newspaper originating from Bengal.  The Bengali newspaper Bangobasi had sharply criticized the British Government's Age of Consent Bill 1891 by writing an article titled 'Age of Consent'.  According to this law passed on 19 March 1891, the age for having sex with girls was increased from 10 to 12 years.  There was no distinction between married and unmarried.  Having sex with a married woman under the age of 12 was also made a crime.  Child marriage was in full swing in the then Bengal even after its many renaissance campaigns.  Bangobasi sharply criticized the British Raj along with this law.  Due to this criticism, a case was instituted against him under this section.  But when this case reached the court, there was no consensus among the judges on it.  The editor also apologized and the suit was dismissed for lack of opinion.

 The articles written by Tilak in 1897 blew the sleep of the British government.  Tilak wrote several articles in his letter Kesari with reference to Shivaji, the founder of the Maratha Empire, in which there was a sharp criticism of the British rule.  The British rulers of Pune felt that after reading Tilak's article, the Chapekar brothers had killed Rand and his associate Ayster.  This incident took place on 22 June 1897.  The Chapekar brothers, Vasudev and Hari Chaphekar, were tried for murder and sentenced to death.  A case of sedition was tried against Tilak under 124A.

 In this section, instead of dissatisfaction, disfavour, it was read as disloyalty and it was considered as non-loyalty, opposition to the Crown.  Thus discontent turned into treason.  The Trial of Tilak, a book on the arguments that took place in this case, testifies to Tilak's legal knowledge and his reasoning.  For the first time in this case, expressions like hatred, enmity, dislike, defamation etc., which make the public dissatisfied with any government, were defined as seditious against the state or government.  Tilak was punished for this crime.  He was the first person to be punished for treason because of his writings.

 A year later, German economist and jurist Max Weber came to his aid.  The appeal of his case was debated in a new way and sedition was interpreted according to the new doctrine.  This was the theory of Strachey, according to which colonial forces often use sedition to oppress free-choice people in their own colonies, even though it is a form of expression.  This time Tilak left after a year.  But due to another article written in Kesari itself, a case of 124A was registered against him again in 1908, in which in 1909 he got 6 years imprisonment which he spent in Mandalay jail.  In this case, Tilak, while giving his side, had said this timeless sentence, "Swaraj is my birthright and I will have it." This sentence was considered seditious.

 After 1897, in 1922, the same case went on Mahatma Gandhi.  Gandhiji wrote many articles in his letter Young India, strongly criticizing the policies of British rule.  Some articles were written on the problems of the farmers which he had seen in Champaran on the atrocities of the indigent landlords.  Gandhi called this act anti-people and oppressive and also said that he has written an article against the British Raj and if it is sedition then he is a traitor.  Read what he said in his own words,

 “Section 124A under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”

 (With regard to section 124A under which I am happy that I have been charged, this section is like a prince in the IPC under all the provisions which have been put to suppress the liberties of the citizens.)

 Mahatma Gandhi was also sentenced to six years.

 The same case was also filed against Bhagat Singh.  However, he was also tried for the Saunders murder case.  Whereas Bhagat Singh's name was not even in the FIR of this case and sedition could not even be proved.  But Bhagat Singh could become a big threat to the British and the British knew his ideological clarity and intellect.  His only objective was to hang Bhagat Singh, which he did on 23 March 1931.

 After independence, when the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly were going on, there was a long debate on this section on 29 April 1947.  Because this section somewhere degrades the fundamental rights given in the constitution.  Sardar Patel refused to consider mere speeches and slogans as sedition.  Communist Party leader Somnath Lahiri said that even in Britain from where this section has been imported, anything sharp or condemning the policies against the government is not considered treason unless such an undertaking is done.  Which is war against the country and the state.  After a long debate in the Constituent Assembly, it was agreed that this charge cannot be made against anyone on the basis of only critical and slanderous speeches.  It would be against the freedom of expression.  Therefore, amendments were made to this section.  On 2 December 1948, Seth Govind Das expressed happiness on this amendment on behalf of all the members.

 The Constituent Assembly adopted the word sedition as it was wrongly defined and interpreted only to punish Bal Gangadhar Tilak.  Whereas there is a difference between discontent and sedition.  All the members of the Constituent Assembly were the fighters of the freedom struggle.  One member said

 “We were all involved in criticizing the British Raj by expressing public discontent. If this channel of criticism is obstructed, governments will become autocratic. Now we have the fundamental right to freedom of expression and a free press. Now  We must get rid of this current."

 The Constitution, completed on 26 November 1949, got rid of the word sedition and the Constitution gave a unique fundamental right in the form of freedom of expression to the people of India of a healthy democratic country, but this section remained in the IPC.

 In 1950, two decisions of the Supreme Court forced the government to make necessary amendments in this section.  The first case pertained to the RSS's letter organiser, and the second case was related to Crossroads magazine.  In both these magazines, the then government was severely criticized and condemned.  The Supreme Court took the side of the government in these cases and asked the editors to refrain from such criticism in view of the infancy of freedom.  But no punitive action was taken.  But the court did not consider it sedition but an unnecessary criticism.  This decision was criticized and an amendment was brought in this section.

 With regard to the criticism and condemnation of the government which is today misunderstood by some as sedition, it will be interesting to read what Jawaharlal Nehru had to say about this section while introducing the amendment in Parliament.  He had said,

 “Take again Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.  Now so far as I am concerned that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass.  The sooner we get rid of it the better,”

 (Take the example of section 124A, Indian Penal Code, this section is not only objectionable but also unpleasant as far as I understand this provision. So there is no need for this section for practical and historical reasons. If  If you all agree then a new law will be made. As soon as possible we should get rid of this provision. "

 However, this provision remained in the IPC despite Nehru's own words in these words.  But Nehru's words spoken in Parliament and his sentiments were accepted by the courts at the time of trial for this crime and in 1950 itself, some High Courts acquitted the accused in the cases registered under Section 124A.

 After independence, the most discussed case of 124A IPC was that of Kedarnath of Bihar which is famous as Kedarnath vs State of Bihar 1962.  Kedarnath, while criticizing the then Congress government in a public meeting, said in Barauni,

 "To-day the dogs of CID are loitering around Barauni. Many official dogs are sitting even in this meeting. The people of India drove out the Britishers from this country and elected these Congress goondas to the gaddi."

 (Today CID dogs are roaming here and there in Barauni. Many government dogs are also present in this meeting. The people of the country overthrew the British from this country, and handed over the throne to these Congress goons.)

 Here CID, Intelligence Intelligence Branch has been asked for the police.  Because earlier the intelligence branch was also a part of CID.  Now it is an independent department.  उन्होंने कांग्रेस पार्टी और सरकार को भ्रष्टाचार, काला बाज़ारी, पूंजीवादी और ज़मींदारों की प्रतिनिधि बताते हुए एक क्रांति कर के देश से भगा देने का आह्वान किया था।

 केदारनाथ के इस भाषण पर स्थानीय पुलिस थाने द्वारा खुफिया रिपोर्ट के आधार पर धारा 124A आईपीसी का एक मुकदमा दर्ज हुआ और उनके खिलाफ अदालत में आरोपपत्र दाखिल हुआ जिसमें ट्रायल के बाद उन्हें सजा मिली।

 अपनी सज़ा के खिलाफ केदारनाथ ने पटना  हाईकोर्ट में अपील की पर उन्हें उक्त अपील में कोई राहत नहीं मिली बल्कि हाईकोर्ट से भी उनकी सज़ा बहाल रही । हाईकोर्ट ने सेडिशन पर कहा कि, यह धारा उन अप्रिय और भड़काऊ शब्दों के लिये दण्डित करने की शक्ति  देती है जिससे कानून और व्यवस्था की गंभीर समस्या उत्पन्न हो सकती है और हिंसा भड़क सकती है। सेडिशन के लिये हाईकोर्ट ने सज़ा तो बहाल रखी पर इस धारा के संबंध में जजों की राय इस प्रकार थी।

 “It has been contended that a person who makes a very strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of measures of Government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the penal section. But, in our opinion, such words written or spoken would be outside the scope of the section.”

 ( इस प्राविधान में यह अंकित है कि अगर कोई व्यक्ति किसी उत्तेजक भाषण या लेख में भड़काऊ शब्दों के साथ सरकार और उसके कार्यकलापों तथा उसके अधिकारियों की ऐसी आलोचना करता है तो वह दंड का भागी होगा। लेकिन हमारी राय के अनुसार ऐसे लिखे और बोले गये शब्द इस धारा के प्राविधान से बाहर हैं। )

 हाईकोर्ट ने यह तो माना कि केदारनाथ द्वारा दिया गया भाषण आक्रामक और भड़काऊ है और सज़ा भी बहाल रखी पर इसे राजद्रोह मानने से इनकार कर दिया। यह एक अजीब फैसला था। राजद्रोह का जब दोष ही नहीं बनता तो सज़ा किस बात की। केदारनाथ ने इस फ़ैसले के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील की।

 सुप्रीम कोर्ट में एक संविधान पीठ का गठन इस अपील की सुनवायी के लिये हुआ। संविधान पीठ ने पहली बार सेडिशन पर एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसला दिया, जिससे यह धारा परिभाषित हुयी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले के अनुसार, आज़ादी मिलने तक 124A के बारे में दो विचार थे, जो इस धारा के संबंध में फेडरल कोर्ट और प्रिवी काउंसिल के फैसलों पर आधारित थे। 1949 में प्रिवी काउंसिल जो सभी कॉमनवेल्थ देशों की साझी सर्वोच्च अपीलीय अदालत थी को भारत सरकार ने एक कानून बनाकर समाप्त कर दिया था । आज़ादी के पहले फेडरल अदालतों की यह धारणा थी कि, " लोक व्यवस्था अथवा लोक व्यवस्था के भंग हो जाने की आशंका ही इस प्राविधान को दंड संहिता में जोड़े जाने का आधार है, इसलिए फेडरल अदालतों के फैसलों के अनुसार, अकेले उत्तेजक और भड़काऊ शब्दावली युक्त भाषणबाजी भी किसी भी हिंसक घटना को जन्म दे सकती है अतः सेडिशन का आरोप बनता है। "

 सुप्रीम कोर्ट की संविधान पीठ ने फेडरल कोर्ट के इन फैसलों की जब संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19A के परिप्रेक्ष्य मे व्याख्या की तो, इस प्राविधान को 19A ( बोलने की आज़ादी और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता ) के विपरीत तो पाया, लेकिन इसे संविधान विरुद्ध नहीं मानते हुये रद्द नहीं किया। हालांकि केदारनाथ को इस अपराध का दोषी नहीं पाया गया और उन्हें बरी कर दिया।

 इस मुक़दमे में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सेडिशन कानून को बनाये रखने की बात कह कर उसे संविधान विरुद्ध नहीं माना है लेकिन अदालत ने यह भी साफ कर दिया जैसा सुप्रीम कोर्ट के प्रसिद्ध वकील फली एस नारीमन कहते हैं कि,

 " केवल सरकार की आलोचना चाहे वह कितनी भी निर्मम और घृणा भरी हो के आधार पर किसी के विरुद्ध सेडिशन का आरोप नहीं लगाया जा सकता है। "

 उपरोक्त विवरण से यह स्पष्ट है कि धारा 121, 122 और 123 आईपीसी में राज्य के विरुद्ध युद्ध की घोषणा, युद्ध का षडयंत्र और राज्य प्रमुख के हत्या या उनपर हमले की बाते हैं तो ये धाराएं सही मायने में देशद्रोह हैं। इन प्राविधानों में कभी कोई विवाद नहीं उठा है।

 जबकि धारा 124A जिसमे केवल " बोले गए या लिखे गए शब्दों द्वारा या संकेतों द्वारा, या दृश्यरूपण द्वारा या अन्यथा भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति घॄणा या अवमान पैदा करने " की अभिव्यक्ति को देशद्रोह या राजद्रोह या सेडिशन कहा गया है, में जब से यह धारा बनी है तब से विवाद उठता रहा है और आज भी बना हुआ है। हर बार अदालतों में इसकी वैधानिकता को चुनौती दी गयी है। इस धारा की परिभाषा को देखते हुए इस बात की संभावना अधिक है कि इसका सत्ता या पुलिस अपने हित मे दुरूपयोग करे। इसके सबसे अधिक शिकार वे अखबार, पत्रिकाएं, टीवी चैनल और पत्रकार बनते हैं और आगे भी  बन सकते है  जो सरकार के सजग और सतर्क आलोचक हैं। विरोधी दल के वे नेता भी शिकार हो सकते हैं जो सत्तारूढ़ दल से वैचारिक आधार पर भिन्न मत रखते हैं और स्वभावतः सरकार के  कटु आलोचक है। ब्रिटिश काल मे भी इस प्राविधान की गाज 1891 में बंगोबासी, 1897 और 1908 में लोकमान्य तिलक ,1922 में महात्मा गांधी और 1929 में भगत सिंह और साथियों पर गिरी थी।

 अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता किसी भी लोकतंत्र की जान है। 1215 में इंग्लैंड के मैग्ना कार्टा, 1688 में इंग्लैंड की ग्लोरियस रिवोल्यूशन और 1789 में हुयी फ्रांस की क्रांति ने मनुष्य के जीवन मे अभिव्यक्ति और जीवन के उदार सिद्धांतों का बीजारोपण किया। यह धारा कहीं न कहीं उस उदार अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार के विपरीत ठहरती है। हर मुक़दमे में विरोधाभास उभर कर सामने आया है। तिलक, गांधी और भगत सिंह तथा साथियों को दी गयी सज़ायें कानूनी आधार पर नहीं बल्कि राजनैतिक और प्रशासनिक आधार पर दी गयीं थी क्योंकि हम गुलाम थे। ग़ुलाम भला आज़ादी के सपने कैसे देख सकता है ! पर अब एक सार्वभौम, स्वतंत्र और विधि द्वारा शासित एक कल्याणकारी राज्य है तो ऐसे राज्य से अपेक्षाये भी होंगी और कभी न कभी, कहीं न कहीं किसी न किसी विंदु पर सरकार की आलोचना भी  होगी। अतः केवल इस आधार पर कि किसी ने सरकार की निर्मम आलोचना, लेख लिख कर और भाषण देकर कर दिया है तो उसे देशद्रोही ठहरा दिया जाय यह एक अधिनायकवादी कदम होगा न कि लोकतांत्रिक।

 सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जज जस्टिस चंद्रचूड़ ने यूपी सरकार के ऊपर तंज कसते हुए कहा था कि,

 "अखबारों में गंगा में बहते शव की खबरों पर, देशद्रोह का कोई मुकदमा सरकार ने अभी दर्ज किया है या नहीं।"

 सुप्रीम कोर्ट को चाहिए कि देश भर में दर्ज देशद्रोह के मुकदमो की समीक्षा के लिये एक न्यायिक समिति बनाये और अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी को हनन करते हुए देशद्रोह के जो मुकदमें दर्ज किए गए हैं उन्हें ख़ारिज कर, एक विस्तृत दिशा निर्देश जारी करे। देश और देशद्रोह को जितना हल्का इस सरकार ने, ज़रा ज़रा सी बात पर सेडिशन का मुकदमा दर्ज कर, बना दिया है उतना तो ब्रिटिश राज ने भी नही किया था। जनता को डरा कर उस पर राज नही किया जा सकता है पर एक लोकतांत्रिक गवर्नेंस की यह छोटी सी, पर बेहद महत्वपूर्ण बात इस सरकार के लोगो को बिल्कुल समझ मे नहीं आएगी।