Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law — Mahatma Gandhi
This is what Mahatma has to say about this particular section of the Indian Penal Code.
Aseem Trivedi arrested and sent on a 14 day remand by Mumbai police on the charge of sedition (against the Indian Penal Code’s section 124A. I have given a word to word text of this section at the end of this article).
A cartoonist by profession, made wolfs instead of Lions depicting National Emblem, wrote ‘Bhrastmave Jayte’ in the place of ‘Satyamave Jayte’. I don’t find it sedition. Does it not reflect the current situation of the country? If a Nation like ours cannot digest a humorously harsh comment on a truthful situation, isn’t it a matter of shame?
This article is not against this Law. I completely support it. In fact if I was the supreme ruler of the country this would have been the first law to be passed. After all nobody should speak against his king. Right?
.jpg)
So here it goes, this law was written in late 19th century by the British as a foreign policy. And to be true thereafter it was never changed. We took it as is or I should say blindly from the monarchy. The only change made was the words ‘His Majesty’s Government’ were replaced by ‘Government established’ in the section…irony.British rulers used it against us to suppress our voices. Mahatma Gandhi himself was charged with sedition under this law and he called it as anti-liberty, anti-justice and anti-truth. And now Government is using it yet again for the very same reason. What difference does the date 15th August 1947 had made?
Hope, by this article, I have not commented against the Indian Government. I just thought of using Article19.
-----------------------------------------------------
TEXT OF SECTION 124A
Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1 — The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope that the Court where his trial is heard realizes that he was only indulging in cartooning and fair criticism and not sedition.
ReplyDeletePolice can arraign anyone in any case under any penal provision. It's ultimately the Courts where the veracity of the Police / Prosecution case is tested. So let's hope justice prevails in Mr. Trivedi's case.
As far as section 124A is concerned, it is my personal opinion that the law should remain as it is. If you read Explanation 2 & 3to Section 124A, you'll know that fair criticism of the Govt.'s actions without any malice towards it cannot be prosecuted under the purview of this section.
On the other hand, if this Section is not there, then disruptive elements will incite all kinds of verbal contempt against a Govt. with ulterior motives and get away under the plea of right to freedom of speech and expression.
Section 124 A seeks to balance free speech by controlling and deterring hate speech and contemptuous slander against Government.
Nice Post
Regards
Anupam
Anupam, Thanks for a read and a wonderful comment...
DeleteI respect your thought on the section 124A that it should remain so that people should not deliver some hate words and hide behind article 19 which is freedom of speech.
But than article19 itself takes care of it. There are the list of limitations coated under it which prevents a person to get away if the expression is against nation and states.
Misuse of 124A is resulting in charges like sedition, which we can see as a cartoonist behind bars without bail, how can it be justified?
Anyway...its just my personal opinion... :)
Thanks again... :)
Vineet
Dear Vineet,
DeleteIt's wonderful to know your insight on this matter. However, after reading your thoughtful reply, I consider it my duty to explain to you certain things to further strengthen your knowledge on this issue. Please bear with me for your benefit.
Now, I'm assuming here that you have fully read Article 19 of our Constitution.
Let us first talk about the restrictions on Article 19 by Article 19 itself.
See, Article 19 does not spell out the restrictions on free speech and expression. It only categorizes what kind of restriction is permissible. Now these categories of restrictions that Article 19 envisages are broadly in two forms viz.
1) Already existing laws which reasonably restrict the exercise of the rights under Article 19 provided that the aim of those laws is to protect sovereignty and integrity of our country
2) The power of the State to make laws with the same objective as mentioned in (1)
Therefore it isn't exactly correct to say that the restrictions in Article 19 are complete in themselves. Since they only categorize the types of restriction that are permissible on Article 19, without laying down the restrictions themselves. Those restrictions are laid down in various other laws, say for instance Section 124 A, IPC (law against sedition), Section 153-A, IPC (law against promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Section 500, IPC (law against defamation) etc.
Obviously, Section 124 A (and other examples given) are covered under the first category since they were already existent when Article 19 of Constitution came into force.
Now the only thing that is to be seen whether the law under Section 124 A is violative of any fundamental right and hence unconstitutional. The answer was given in the negative, long back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it upheld Section 124 A as being a good law in these following words
" Though the section imposes restrictions on the fundamental freedom of speech and expression, the restrictions are in the interest of public order and are within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with that fundamental right."
As I mentioned earlier, Section 124 A seeks to balance free speech by controlling and deterring hate speech and contemptuous slander against Government. It does not muzzle fair criticism (See Explanations 2 & 3 of Section 124 A, IPC).
Secondly you seem to think that bail has been denied to Aseem. That's not true since, he himself chose not to apply for bail as a protest against the Police action against him.
Thirdly I just want to say this Vineet, that misuse of laws will always be there. Doing away with a law in fear of it's misuse is not the right thing to do, especially when that law exists to safeguard undue attacks on the sovereignty of our country. Plus as I said Police can charge any person with anything. Let's just not do away with vital laws due to irresponsible policing.
I hope I have not offended you in any manner Vineet, as my only inention was to provide holistic info on this issue so that you can form your opinion accordingly. Thanks for bearing with me.
Do drop by sometime at 'reflections' @ http://anupampatracontemplates.blogspot.in
Regards,
Anupam
Anupam, I really appreciate the vast knowledge you pursue on the matter and the different sections on IPC... :)
DeleteTo be clear i never asked for removal of the section, what i tend to say was it is highly dubious and very likely to be misused (As u said misuse of laws will always be there, this one might be fatal)
Just adding an extra clause or modifying the content of it (of course this must be done under honorable Supreme court) the misuse of it can be prevented.
It should not happen that in the shadow of 124A, a common man is scared to even use his FOS. If we are not allowed to criticize, to ask questions and to express dissatisfaction and to showcase in what situation our country is turning into...Are not we heading towards dictatorship then?
"the restrictions are in the interest of public order and are within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with that fundamental right." I doubt, after the episodes of Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen and now Aseem Trivedi, even honorable SC will give a second thought to it...
Well this is a never ending debate. Best part is, we all want a better place for people and a better form of democracy...
Anupam, It was really wonderful to know your thoughts, it added an extra flavor to the article...and yes i have been to your blog many a times...and i must say you are a brilliant blogger...cheers :)
Vineet
At the cost of repetition, Vineet I will humbly remind you that Explanations 2 and 3 of Section 124A clearly exempt fair and meaningful criticism of the Govt. from the purview of the offence of sedition. So no one can be charged of sedition for his fair criticism. Or else every day so many persons who write, debate and speak against the Govt. would have filled the jails. That's not the law. I think there are enough examples of free debates and fearless criticism of the Govt. that we see everyday, particularly in the print and electronic media. None of them have been booked so far u/s 124 A.
DeleteThe Police has probably made a mistake by arraigning Aseem u/s 124A for his cartoons. The charge doesn't fit the act. That's all I may say in my limited knowledge of the facts and evidence of the case. But ofcourse the Court will decide the matter now.
I agree with you that all we want is a better place and a better democracy for our fellow citizens.
Thanks for your kind appreciation Vineet. I'm truly humbled by these words coming from such a terrific blogger himself.
Regards,
Anupam
brilliant comment as always....we just have to make sure that these kind of mistakes must be analyzed and in response it must be avoided in future...
Deletehope is the word, which makes us all believe and gives strength to trust in our constitution and judicial system...
So let us all hope for the best...
Vineet
Cheers
Delete