The Big Picture - Sedition Law and the Debate

Date-12 February, 2019: A legal opinion sought by the Centre on a Law Commission report on the British era sedition law has stated that “Section 124A - sedition as interpreted by the Supreme Court is necessary”. In short, it is unlikely that the IPC section on sedition is diluted or scrapped. In September 2016, the Supreme Court had reiterated that a larger bench had already provided necessary safeguards that should be followed by all authorities, and “every magistrate is bound by what it said in the Kedar Nath case”. It was referring to the order in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, 1962, in which a Constitution Bench had ruled in favour of the Constitutional validity of Section 124A, but had added a vital caveat: that a person could be prosecuted for sedition only if his acts caused “incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace”. In August last year, the Law Commission submitted a “consultation paper” to the Centre on the need for changes in the law, pointing out that even the United Kingdom abolished sedition laws ten years ago saying the country did not want to be quoted as an example of one using such draconian laws. A report in the Indian Express said - while a final decision on whether to dilute the law or not is yet to be made public, but various stakeholders including state governments and law enforcement agencies, have expressed the need to retain the law without changes. Guest - J. Sai Deepak, Advocate, Supreme Court, Subhash C. Raina, Former Dean, Law Faculty, Delhi University, Soli Sorabjee, Former Attorney General of India, Prof. Rajvir Sharma, Political Analyst, Anchor - Frank Rausan Pereira