The use of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, commonly known as the “sedition law”, has never been as much discussed as in recent times. But few political parties have taken an open stand against the law, except the Left parties. Even as the number of people booked under the section has seen a steady rise in the tenure of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance government led by Narendra Modi, the demand that it be removed from the statute books has also risen simultaneously. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is also of the opinion that Section 124A has no place in democratic India. Sitaram Yechury, former Rajya Sabha member and at present the general secretary of the party, spoke to Frontline on why the CPI(M) feels the law should go. Excerpts from the interview.
The sedition law is an anachronism in our criminal law. This was a provision in the law enacted by the British for those who “rebelled against the crown”. There is no concept of a crown in our country today. We are a democracy. There are enough laws to protect our national security and internal security, and all these exist in our statute books. The sedition provision is completely untenable with our democratic structure. It is often and only used to tackle political opponents. That is what is happening, whether it is in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar or those labelled and charged as urban naxals. It is used against anyone who is critical of the government of the day. We think it is completely anti-democratic and should be scrapped.
It is felt that all the political parties have used it against political opponents and that what the present government is doing is not unusual.
Once it is there in the statute books, governments will be tempted to use it. The answer is to remove it. That is why it should be scrapped. It is not a question of blaming this party or that. As long as the clause remains, it will be susceptible to misuse. The current government is the most intolerant that we have seen. People can be picked up for sending WhatsApp messages, cartoons and jokes. This government has completely misused it.
None at all. The political class is equally vulnerable. It has been used indiscriminately by various governments to target political opponents and popular struggles led by some of them. Some of the recent cases, like that of the arrest of Hiren Gohain, a prominent intellectual, Akhil Gogoi, a political activist, and Manjit Mahanta, a journalist, for speaking out against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill are clear examples of gross misuse of the sedition law.
The courts have held the view that the misuse of a law does not warrant its repeal. Yet, at different points of time, courts, including the Supreme Court, have warned against the misuse of this clause, in the spirit of the Constitutional Bench judgment in the “Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar” case in 1962, when it limited the scope of this Section.
In all the recent cases, including the recent one involving students from Jawaharlal Nehru University [JNU], where the clause has been invoked, where is the conspiracy against the government?We already have laws that deal with anti-national activities such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which are, unfortunately, also misused. There are laws that allow for preventive detention without bail. Three persons who were accused in the cow slaughter case in Bulandshahr were booked under the National Security Act, while those accused of killing the inspector in the same case have not been charged similarly.
What is the additional use of this law on sedition? It is draconian in every sense. It can be invoked against anyone who “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law”. Now, despite the Supreme Court reading down this Section in the Kedar Nath Singh judgment, where it was stated that the clause was applicable only when there was violence or an explicit incitement to violence, the Section continues to be used indiscriminately. Some persons were arrested for not standing up in the cinema hall when the national anthem was being played. As long as the clause is there, it is liable to be misused. We have always been against the use of draconian laws to suppress dissent and political opposition.
Yes, look at the whole issue, especially in the case involving the students of JNU. The magisterial inquiry ordered by the Delhi government showed that the tapes that have been produced as evidence have been found to be doctored. It seems to be a cooked-up case and to slap it again after three years on the eve of elections points to a certain kind of vindictive attitude of the BJP government. What does this mean, the charge sheet after three years? What else can it mean other than political witch-hunt?
It was precisely the vindictive attitude of the government that led it to invoke the sedition clause, which was used by the British against leaders of the freedom struggle. The statute was not removed by subsequent governments in order to further their own class interests.
We are emphatic that it should be scrapped and it should not exist in our statute books.
