Showing posts with label sedition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sedition. Show all posts
Monday, 23 June 2025
Sunday, 29 December 2024
Rajasthan HC: [S.152 BNS] Sedition Law Is A Shield For National Security, Not A Sword Against Political Dissent
12.4. To sum up, laws restricting speech must be narrowly tailored. There must be a direct and imminent connection between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion or secession to invoke such provisions. Legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or antinational acts. For instance, in cases involving Section 124A (sedition) of the repealed IPC, casual or rhetorical statements did not amount to sedition, unless, of course, they incite violence or public disorder. To my mind, a similar approach would apply to Section 152. Its broad phrasing necessitates careful application to prevent misuse or overreach. The provision must be interpreted in conjunction with the constitutional rights to free speech and expression to ensure it does not infringe on democratic freedoms. One must stay mindful that the provision is used as a shield for national security and not a sword against legitimate dissent.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5005/2024
Tejender Pal Singh @ Timma Vs State Of Rajasthan,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Pronounced on : 16/12/2024.
Citation: [2024:RJ-JD:34845]
Print Page
Monday, 16 September 2024
The Evolution of Sedition Law in India: From Colonial Relic to Modern Controversy U/S 152 of the BNS
Introduction
The law of sedition in India has been a subject of intense debate and legal scrutiny for decades. From its colonial origins to its recent suspension by the Supreme Court, the sedition law has undergone significant evolution. This article traces the journey of India's sedition law and examines its potential reincarnation in new legislation.
Historical Background
Sedition law in India has its roots in the British colonial era. Introduced in 1870, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalized actions that brought or attempted to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government. Despite India gaining independence in 1947, this colonial-era law was retained in the IPC.
Constitutional Challenges and Judicial Interpretation
Print PageHow concept of Sedition as mentioned in Clause 152 of BNS is different from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?
The comparison between Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023 reveals significant changes in the legal framework governing sedition in India. Below is a detailed analysis of how these two provisions differ and their implications.
Implications of Changes
Increased Severity of Punishments
S 152 of BNS significantly increases the potential punishment for acts previously categorized under sedition. While Section 124A of IPC allowed for imprisonment up to three years, Section 150 raises this limit to seven years, with life imprisonment as a possibility for more severe offenses. This change reflects a shift towards harsher penalties for actions deemed threatening to national integrity.
Broader Scope
Print PageSunday, 23 June 2024
18 Important Changes Introduced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita{BNS}{NEW IPC}
1) Community Service As Form Of Punishment
Community service has been introduced as a form of punishment under Section 4, although it has not been defined what community service entails. For offences such as attempting suicide to compel or restrain the exercise of lawful power, defamation, misconduct in public by a drunken person, and failure to appear at the specified place and time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 84 of the BNS, 2023, community service can be awarded in addition to the prescribed punishment.
2) Offences Against Woman and Child Of Sexual Offences- The new BNS adds Chapter V naming “Of Offences Against Woman and Child Of Sexual Offences”. All the offences relating to woman and child have been placed under one chapter in the beginning of the Code, which was earlier spread under various chapters and parts.
3) Marital Rape With Minor Wife Is Offence
As per exception of Rape which is Section 63 of BNS, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, where the wife is not under eighteen years of age, would not be rape. However, under IPC, the age of wife to not to constitute rape was “fifteen years”.
Print PageFriday, 25 November 2022
Supreme Court Judgement keeping sedition law in abeyance
In view of the above, it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. {Para 5}
6. This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused. The Attorney General had also, on an earlier date of hearing, given some instances of glaring misuse of this provision, like in the case of recital of the Hanuman Chalisa.
7. Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments.
8. In view of the clear stand taken by the Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice:
a. The interim stay granted in W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated 31.05.2021 shall continue to operate till further orders.
b. We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.
c. If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India.
d. All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.
e. In addition to the above, the Union of India shall be at liberty to issue the Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC.
f. The above directions may continue till further orders are passed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
N.V. RAMANA; CJI., SURYA KANT; J., HIMA KOHLI; J.
Dated: MAY 11, 2022
S.G. VOMBATKERE Vs UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION(C) No.682 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION(C) No.552 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION(C) No.773 OF 2021
O R D E R
1. These petitions are filed challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter IPC) relating to the offence of Sedition.
2. Having heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the documents available on record, we may observe that this matter was listed for the first time on 15.07.2021. Thereinafter, this Court, after hearing the parties, issued notice on 27.04.2022. When this matter was next taken up, learned Solicitor General of India prayed for additional time of 2 to 3 days for filing of counter-affidavit. Accordingly, time was granted till the end of the week for filing counter-affidavit. Again, the matter was listed on 05.05.2022, wherein the Solicitor General again sought additional time to file a counter affidavit. On that date, this Court while granting the Solicitor General time to file counter affidavit, directed the parties to file their written submissions on the preliminary issue of the necessity of reference to a larger bench prior to the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, on 07.05.2022, written submissions were filed on behalf of Solicitor General of India.
4. On 09.05.2022, an affidavit was filed on behalf of Union of India, averring as under:
“3. I state and submit that so far as Section 124A is concerned, there are divergence of views expressed in public domain by various jurists, academicians, intellectuals and citizens in general. While they agree about the need for statutory provisions to deal with serious offences of divisive nature affecting the very sovereignty and integrity of the Country, acts leading to destabilizing the government established by law by means not authorised by law or prohibited by law. Requiring a penal Provision for such purposes is generally accepted by everyone in legitimate State interest. However, concerns are raised about its application and abuse for the purposes not intended by law.
4. The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject and has also periodically, in various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour of protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving meaning to the constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country. He has repeatedly said that one of India’s strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in our country.
5. The Hon’ble PM believes that at a time when our nation is marking ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’ (75 years since independence) we need to, as a nation, work even harder to shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which includes outdated colonial laws and practices. In that spirit, the Government of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated law since 2014-15 . It has also ended over 25,000 compliance burdens which were causing unnecessary hurdles to people of our country. Various offences which were causing mindless hindrances to people have been decriminalised. This is an ongoing process. These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mind set and thus have no place in today’s India.
6. The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various view being expressed on the subject of sedition and also having considered the concern of civil liberties and human rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which can only be done before the Competent Forum.
7. In view of the aforesaid it is this respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may not invest time in examining the validity of Section 124A once again and be pleased to await the exercise of
reconsideration to be undertaken by the Government of India before an appropriate forum where such reconsideration is constitutionally.”
5. In view of the above, it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law.
6. This Court is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused. The Attorney General had also, on an earlier date of hearing, given some instances of glaring misuse of this provision, like in the case of recital of the Hanuman Chalisa.
7. Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the Governments.
8. In view of the clear stand taken by the Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice:
a. The interim stay granted in W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated 31.05.2021 shall continue to operate till further orders.
b. We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.
c. If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India.
d. All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.
e. In addition to the above, the Union of India shall be at liberty to issue the Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC.
f. The above directions may continue till further orders are passed.
9. List these petitions in the third week of July, 2022.
Saturday, 28 March 2015
When offence of sedition is not made out?
In a major relief to cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, a bench comprising of Mohit Shah, CJ and N.M. Jamdar, J has held that citizens have the right to say or write anything criticizing the government and its measures as far as it does not incite violence or create problems in law and order. The Court observed that after having seen the seven cartoons drawn by the cartoonist, they didn't find any element of wit or humour or sarcasm in them. It only displayed anger and disgust. But that does not mean that it attracted sedition charges,
The Court stated that it is clear that the provisions of Section 124A of IPC cannot be invoked to penalize criticism of the persons engaged in carrying on administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means. Every citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comments, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder. The section aims at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
The Court also accepted a set of guidelines, as pre-conditions to police for invoking sedition charges only if an act was an incitement to violence or disturbed pubic order. A legal opinion in writing, along with reasons, must also be submitted before any charge of sedition was to be applied in any case.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2015
Sanskar Marathe
versus
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 17 March 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)