It is said that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita completely repeals the offence of sedition —which is reflected in Section 124A of the IPC. However, upon closer inspection, it can be seen that the provision has been introduced under a new name and with a more expansive definition for the offence. Critically analyse the statement.
SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124-A CAN BE COMPARED WITH SECTION 152 OF BNS – Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
DISSECTING SECTION 152 OF BNS MENS REA : Whoever, purposely or knowingly,HOW THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED [MEANS]:
by words, either spoken or written, or
by signs, or
by visible representation, or
by electronic communication or
by use of financial mean,
or otherwise,
CORE OF THE OFFENCE: excites or attempts to excite,
secession or
armed rebellion or
subversive activities, or
encourages feelings of separatist activities or
endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act
shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.––Comments expressing
disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means
without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section do not constitute an offence under this section
Disapprobation means disapproval. In a democratic country, expression of disapproval is key.
OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLE?
Section 124A of the IPC focuses on activities that excite hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the government, whereas Section 152 of the BNS penalises activities that excite
‘subversive activities’ or encourage ‘feelings of separatist activities’ or endanger the ‘sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.’
While the word ‘sedition’ has been removed from the penal statute, the new provision appears to be as rights-restrictive as its counterpart.
VAGUENESS : BNS does not explain what constitutes exciting ‘subversive activities’ or encouraging ‘feelings of separatist activities’.
Post-independence, courts have had multiple occasions to interpret Section 124A of the IPC with respect to Article 19 [Refer to Kedar Nath V. State of WB] WHEREAS the scope of Section 152 of the BNS—a completely new provision with changed standards—is unclear since the tests evolved by the courts in decisions regarding Section 124A of the IPC no longer apply.
REASONING OF GOVT : The Union government has reasoned that the new provision no longer criminalises ‘sedition’ (rajdroh), but criminalises ‘treason’ (deshdroh), since criticising the government is no longer an offence.
PUZZLING? However, this does not signify a departure from the IPC. It is unclear how the standards under the new provision are substantially different from those under the older provision.
CRITICISM: Concern about sedition law has always been about how the state has utilised it to stifle dissent through arrest and extended detention of persons.
· Most cases do not lead to conviction (as reflected in the NCRB Data for 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019 and 2018), and the criminal process itself becomes the punishment.
· This has been facilitated by broadly worded provisions that empower law enforcement agencies to detain individuals. Creating more ambiguity in the standards for these offences will only increase their harmful impact.
Komentarze