The panel was expressing its opinions in response to the government’s request for them. Additionally, it has suggested certain changes to the punitive rules, including a requirement for a preliminary inquiry and a few procedural protections. About a year after the administration informed the Supreme Court that it would review the sedition legislation, it has already delivered its findings.
Source: Bar and Bench
The court had instructed the national and state governments to forgo filing any FIRs under Section 124A after receiving the government’s guarantee, and it had also paused any pending sedition legislation proceedings. The administration was questioned by the court as to why a colonial-era legislation that had been applied to Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi was not being repealed.
This is especially important since, in recent years, many people have been unfairly targeted under the legislation, including opposition leaders, government opponents, activists, and journalists, in an effort to quash dissent and punish criticism.
The commission’s judgement is wholly retrograde and devalues the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental democratic principle. By raising the sentence from three to seven years, it aimed to make the legislation more strict. According to a directive from the Supreme Court, the prohibitions can only be used when claimed seditious activities result in, or have a tendency to result in, violence or public disruption.
However, the commission’s suggested changes go farther than that. They contend that even the ‘tendency’ to inspire violence should be punished even if such violence doesn’t take place. Because the police would determine if there was a tendency, the legislation would become more onerous.
Source: WION
Instead of serving as an expert group that gives the government sound advice, the commission has operated more like the administration’s spokesperson. The ever-proliferating social media and the operations of the Maoists and terrorists in the North-East and Kashmir are cited as major factors in the commission’s harsh posture.
These are the same reasons put up by the government, which has a history of labelling even Opposition figures and members of civil society as urban Naxals and members of the tukde tukde gang in an effort to silence them through the use of the sedition statute. Ironically, the previous legislation Commission had requested a reconsideration or repeal of the sedition legislation in a consultation document in 2018. Sedition is no longer a criminal offence in many democratic nations, including the UK. India ought to do that. I hope the Supreme Court will uphold the correct viewpoint.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
