Sedition law is not gone, it’s set to be more draconian

Whoever, purposely or knowingly by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial means, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment that may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine.

Explanation: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section.

The proposed clause 150 demonstrably makes the law of sedition, under a new name, more stringent. The inclusion of “by use of financial means” creates an ambiguity especially because the notes on the proposed clauses do not provide any explanation — for that or anything else in the new law. There is also no clarity on what the term “subversive” means for the purpose of this clause. The endeavour seems to be to make the current sedition law wider but without the safeguards that judicial pronouncements have created so far.

Another concept — “encouraging feelings of separatist activities” — has been introduced. This is couched in broad terms that could include a lot of political speech and literature, even if it does not lead to any violence against the state.

The government appears to have accepted the recommendation of the Law Commission regarding the punishment under the provision, but in doing so has created another ambiguity. The clause prescribes life imprisonment, or, imprisonment up to seven years – without prescribing anything in between, or laying down guidelines for imposition of sentence. The current punishment prescribed under section 124A of the IPC also suffers from the same ambiguity. That is one of the grounds for the constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the proposed legislation has introduced a new offence of “terrorist act” that does not exist under the IPC. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) currently defines “terrorist act” in slightly narrower terms to specify that such an offence would be attracted when the integrity and sovereignty of India are threatened. However, concerningly, clause 111 of the Bill broadens the ambit of the offence to go beyond the threat to the state by including any act “to disturb public order” as a terrorist act if it causes “damage or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, destruction of a Government or public facility, public place or private property”.

This would essentially allow the police to prosecute any political protests or strikes, violent or otherwise, as a terrorist act. For example, the recent farmer protests would have been termed a terrorist act under this provision. Clause 150 read with clause 111 of the Bill therefore appears to create an even more draconian regime through the sedition law.

One also wonders why clause 111 was not included under the chapter on offences against the state. A possible reason for this could be that both clauses are similar in spirit and the inclusion of clause 111 more or less obviates the need for clause 150. So the statements regarding the “repeal” of the sedition law are misleading, and the old wine appears to have been repackaged in a larger bottle.

Also Read

Inside Track by Coomi Kapoor: Allied problems, Cong-AAP ties & Hema Malin...

P Chidambaram writes: Aid and Advise

Suhas Palshikar writes: The rise of bulldozer governance

Faizan Mustafa writes: New penal code falls short of its laudable objectives

The writer, Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court of India, is the author of The Great Repression — the story of sedition in India