Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything- George Bernard Shaw
The provision of sedition is an archaic law now. It had its relevance in the colonial era when India was not a democracy and all the laws were made with the sole motive of domineering the people. That era is over. A new dawn must begin. However, there is a very strong resistance to any relevant change in India, despite of its tantalizing its people’s lives for ages. Sedition law has tried to be done away with by many judicial decisions and reviews. Nevertheless it is here to stay. This fact is well acknowledged, the reality being that our nation like any other nation is not a fairy land. It has rebels who have angst against …show more content…
Sedition is included in all the common law jurisdictions. It is a conception, initially developed in the colonial times and has been alleged for perpetuating the provisions of that era. Many nations like Australia and Hong Kong have even started making certain amendments to it for directing it more to its target. United Kingdom, the very nation which used to go to the perilous limit of chopping off the ears of the offenders, abolished its sedition law in 2009. Scotland, South Korea and Indonesia are other nations which have discarded the provision entirely. With reference to the Indian version of the same, our country has been rearing the provision now for 156 years, and the only nations it shares the provision with, are Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Senegal and Turkey. No further prejudice needs to be created as the fact speaks clearly for itself. Sedition, in India, has been mentioned in Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James …show more content…
Illustrating this, the word ‘disaffection’ has been contested in the courts several times, for a detailed clarification. It was first contested in 1892, in Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose. Sir Petheram at the Calcutta High Court distinguished between ‘disaffection’ and ‘disapprobation’, and expressly linked ‘disaffection’ to ‘a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the government’. After umpteen litigations and amendments in the next fifty years on the same matter, it was finally settled that advocating, inciting, persuading or otherwise encouraging people to disobey the law does not, in itself, fall within the legal definition of sedition. It is a well proven fact that the provisions relating to sedition in India, in the present times have persistently been used by the government for encroaching on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of the general mass. This law was started by the British who ruled India, as a way of controlling the freedom fighters, but in recent times the law has gained prominence for being notorious and contentious. Independent India’s governments seem to have found great relief in having a provision on sedition in the penal statute. It is being used by the governments to silence or discipline critics. A spate of litigations in the fifties and sixties, and the amendments made to Article 19 of the
The provision of sedition is an archaic law now. It had its relevance in the colonial era when India was not a democracy and all the laws were made with the sole motive of domineering the people. That era is over. A new dawn must begin. However, there is a very strong resistance to any relevant change in India, despite of its tantalizing its people’s lives for ages. Sedition law has tried to be done away with by many judicial decisions and reviews. Nevertheless it is here to stay. This fact is well acknowledged, the reality being that our nation like any other nation is not a fairy land. It has rebels who have angst against …show more content…
Sedition is included in all the common law jurisdictions. It is a conception, initially developed in the colonial times and has been alleged for perpetuating the provisions of that era. Many nations like Australia and Hong Kong have even started making certain amendments to it for directing it more to its target. United Kingdom, the very nation which used to go to the perilous limit of chopping off the ears of the offenders, abolished its sedition law in 2009. Scotland, South Korea and Indonesia are other nations which have discarded the provision entirely. With reference to the Indian version of the same, our country has been rearing the provision now for 156 years, and the only nations it shares the provision with, are Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Senegal and Turkey. No further prejudice needs to be created as the fact speaks clearly for itself. Sedition, in India, has been mentioned in Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James …show more content…
Illustrating this, the word ‘disaffection’ has been contested in the courts several times, for a detailed clarification. It was first contested in 1892, in Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose. Sir Petheram at the Calcutta High Court distinguished between ‘disaffection’ and ‘disapprobation’, and expressly linked ‘disaffection’ to ‘a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the government’. After umpteen litigations and amendments in the next fifty years on the same matter, it was finally settled that advocating, inciting, persuading or otherwise encouraging people to disobey the law does not, in itself, fall within the legal definition of sedition. It is a well proven fact that the provisions relating to sedition in India, in the present times have persistently been used by the government for encroaching on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of the general mass. This law was started by the British who ruled India, as a way of controlling the freedom fighters, but in recent times the law has gained prominence for being notorious and contentious. Independent India’s governments seem to have found great relief in having a provision on sedition in the penal statute. It is being used by the governments to silence or discipline critics. A spate of litigations in the fifties and sixties, and the amendments made to Article 19 of the