On May 9, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal informed the Supreme Court that the government wanted to review section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. A colonial-era provision, Section 124A says that “attempts to bring into hatred or contempt… or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government” are punishable with imprisonment up to a life term.
Drawing attention to the absurd use of “sedition law”, he cited the example of the Mumbai Police arresting Ravi Rana, an independent MLA in Maharashtra, and his wife, Navneet Rana, MP, for declaring that they would recite the Hanuman Chalisa in front of Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s home. The couple wanted to mobilise protests against Thackeray, but the police saw it as an effort to overthrow the government. They were arrested on April 23 and, even though they had not recited the hymn, were charged with section 124A.
Venugopal appeared before the Supreme Court four days after the Ranas were granted bail by a special court. He told the Supreme Court that the Centre was committed to protecting civil liberties, and said Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself had unequivocally expressed the government’s intention to shed the “colonial baggage” in India’s justice system. He pointed out that more than 1,500 outdated laws had been scrapped by the Centre since 2014-15; section 124A, after proper consultations with stakeholders, was apparently the next.
The Centre’s decision—seen by some people as Modi’s masterstroke that denies the apex court an opportunity to assess the constitutionality of the controversial law—has brought cheer to the community of activists, journalists, filmmakers, intellectuals and free-speech champions.
Filmmaker and activist Aisha Sultana, a Lakshadweep resident who was charged with section 124A last year for criticising the government’s handling of the Covid crisis, plans to approach the Kerala High Court. “It is a welcome decision from the Union government. I am hopeful that Aisha will get relief now,” said K.A. Akbar, her counsel.
According to him, candid and honest political criticism cannot be termed as seditious. “Aisha’s statements (she had likened the pandemic to a bioweapon) can at best be termed as an expression of disapprobation of the government’s actions, so that the prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently,” said Akbar.
Manipur-based journalist Kishorechandra Wangkhem, who was arrested last year for a Facebook post that was perceived to be offensive, welcomed the order. “I hope that the government will act as per the wishes of the people when it reviews the sedition law. The practice of detaining activists, journalists and common people on the whims and fancies of the political class needs to stop,” he said.
Kishorechandra was one of the petitioners who had challenged the controversial law in the Supreme Court. “My family has suffered a lot because of the case slapped against me. But I am trying to convert my trauma into positive energy by helping those who have been wrongly detained by the police,” he said.
For the government, though, the review of the sedition law could open a Pandora’s box. According to official data, nearly 60 per cent cases invoking section 124A have attracted provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Information Technology Act, as well as IPC sections such as 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth and residence), 153B (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295 (defiling a place of worship with an intent to insult religious beliefs).
Vipul Mudgal, director of the NGO Common Cause, a petitioner in the sedition case, said the government would have to take into account all IPC provisions that predate independence when it reviews section 124A. “The constitutionality of these laws cannot be presumed in all cases,” he said.
From 2010 to 2021, as many as 13,000 people were charged with sedition. “It is disappointing that the onus is on the accused to approach the court if he is slapped with sedition charges, or wants to apply for bail in an ongoing case. Often, the accused do not have the money or resources to hire lawyers,” said Lubhyathi Rangarajan, a lawyer who heads Article 14, an initiative of lawyers, journalists and academicians to safeguard constitutional rights.
According to officials in the Union home ministry, a draft of directives has been issued to state governments to prevent misuse of the existing law. “The apex court has cleared the draft and stayed trials where the only offence is sedition,” said an official. Apparently, the court order does not warrant the suspension of ongoing trials in which the accused have been charged with laws other than section 124A. It means cases related to the Bhima Koregaon violence in 2018 or the Delhi riots in 2020 can still be heard.
According to Lubhyathi, the relief granted by the Supreme Court would be in effect till the court once again hears the case in the third week of July. What happens after it, however, is anyone’s guess. “Will the government promulgate an ordinance, or will it wait for the monsoon session of Parliament to commence?” she wondered. All eyes are on Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana. He heads the bench that is hearing the case and is set to retire on August 27.
Lawyer Abhinav Sekhri, who represents the accused in the Delhi riots case, said the Supreme Court order leaves room for interpretation. “But right now, [the order] has just symbolic value,” he said. “For citizens to see its impact in all practical ways, we will have to wait for some years after the government takes a final decision.”