Section And Dissection

The Supreme Court’s order on the sedition law raises more questions than answers

- Namrata Biji Ahuja

On May 9, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal informed the Supreme Court that the government wanted to review section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. A colonial-era provision, Section 124A says that “attempts to bring into hatred or contempt… or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government” are punishable with imprisonment up to a life term.

Drawing attention to the absurd use of “sedition law”, he cited the example of the Mumbai Police arresting Ravi Rana, an independent MLA in Maharashtra, and his wife, Navneet Rana, MP, for declaring that they would recite the Hanuman Chalisa in front of Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s home. The couple wanted to mobilise protests against Thackeray, but the police saw it as an effort to overthrow the government. They were arrested on April 23 and, even though they had not recited the hymn, were charged with section 124A.

Venugopal appeared before the Supreme Court four days after the Ranas were granted bail by a special court. He told the Supreme Court that the Centre was committed to protecting civil liberties, and said Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself had unequivocally expressed the government’s intention to shed the “colonial baggage” in India’s justice system. He pointed out that more than 1,500 outdated laws had been scrapped by the Centre since 2014-15; section 124A, after proper consultations with stakeholders, was apparently the next.