It is regrettable that the panel overlooked the fact that the Constitution aims to increase citizens’ rights and freedoms compared to those enjoyed by people under colonial authority. Additionally, it disregarded the Supreme Court’s crystal-clear warning when the court postponed the sedition statute rather than completely repealing it, giving the government time to reconsider its own stance on the law. As a result, the commission has produced a report that is more in line with the government’s wishes than with the opinions of the Supreme Court.
Source: mobile.twitter.com
Justice Awasthi highlighted the same fallacious justifications put forth by the commission. He claims that because of current substantial risks to national security, the legislation must be upheld. However, the administration has asserted that during its rule, the country’s security situation, particularly that in Kashmir, has significantly improved and is now normal.
Sedition laws are frequently applied to silence opponents of the government and to limit free expression. According to the panel, the police are to fault for this and not the legislation. However, while the panel has suggested tightening the legislation and enhancing penalties, the police will still be able to abuse the law and do so more frequently.
Only speech that stirs up public unrest is classified as sedition under current law. However, the panel claims that sedition should be defined as even the tendency to instigate violence or produce public unrest. According to the explanation, it is merely an inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder, rather than proof of actual violence.
Source: Study IQ Judiciary
‘Tendency’ and ‘inclination’ are ambiguous terms that the government and the police are free to use anyway they see fit. Additionally, the panel disregarded the fact that the IPC contains sufficient measures to address offences against the State.
Numerous recent court rulings defending free speech, the right to privacy, and other fundamental rights are not taken into account in the commission’s findings. The commission defends the sedition legislation, a colonial statute passed in 1860 to punish independence fighters, by claiming that the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy.
Even in Britain, the law has been repealed. The law, according to Justice Awasthi, is an acceptable restriction under Article 19(2). However, it is a truth that most of its uses have been motivated by dubious political motives. By making such an incorrect case, the commission simply damages its credibility.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
