SEDITION: SUPREME COURT VIEW

The sedition law, under which Gandhi and his freedom fighters were jailed, has been reviled and condemned as anachronistic and an imperialist hand me down. It has also been challenged in court. But it still flourishes.

- Inderjit Badhwar

DESPITE the hue and cry that reverberates about the validity and legitimacy of sedition laws whenever the government machinery leans heavily on them as a tool for the suppression of dissent, I doubt that notwithstanding their misuse for gagging free speech, they will ever be stricken from the books.

This is because governments, no matter how loudly they may scream when their parties are in the opposition, invoke and use draconian rules to deter challenges to their authority when they are in power. And the courts, while interfering in habeas corpus matters and protected speech, will rarely overturn or revoke laws and legislation even if they border on the infringement of civil liberties.

Courts are generally conservative. They believe such matters are in the purview of the legislature. You may argue with this, but this doctrine falls within what is known as “strict constructionism”.

And so it goes with prosecution under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code. This sedition law, under which Gandhi and his freedom fighters were repeatedly jailed, has been reviled and condemned as anachronistic and an imperialist hand-me-down. It has also been challenged in court. But it still flourishes. And it is once again in the news because the government has used it as a handy legal weapon against many of its critics, including climate activist Disha Ravi, supporting anti-government protests such as the farmers’ agitation.