Explaining the evolution of the law on sedition in India at an event here, former Supreme Court judge B.N. Srikrishna said that it had been challenged on several occasions even before it had become the subject of recent controversy.
Speaking at an event organised at IIT Bombay, and in response to a question about whether the law on sedition interferes with the right to free speech, he said the courts in India had adopted a British era federal court stand on the issue.
“When the British introduced the law on sedition their version was that anybody who said anything that generated disaffection with the elected government was guilty of sedition. The High Courts upheld this, but the federal court took a different view, saying that unless people were incited toward an act of violence it was not sedition,” he explained.
While the case went to the Privy Council at the time, which upheld the earlier views of the High Courts that merely saying anything against the British government amounted to sedition, Mr. Srikrishna said a case regarding sedition came up before the Supreme Court soon after independence. “The Supreme Court read down the law and said that the decision of the federal court was right,” he said.
While Mr. Srikrishna was speaking on an overview of the constitution, he was asked questions pertaining to current events and the discussion on nationalism in the wake of the JNU controversy. To a question on whether the constitution contained any generic definition of nationalism, he said that was a political ideology on which there were no words in the Constitution.
The word nationalism, he said, is as vague as the definition of words like socialism. Justice Srikrishna recounted how he had asked a conference of judges once why a particular ruling of the court was seen as socialist. “They said there are many shades of meaning to the word but it largely means doing what is good for the people,” he said. Similarly, he said, nationalism has many shades of meaning. “I would say do whatever you think is nationalist as long as you are not trying to hurt somebody,' he said.
To a question on judicial overreach and whether judges of the Supreme Court are giving rulings on matters they shouldn't interfere in, Mr. Srikrishna said he was of the view that the courts should not get into matters of policy as that was for the government. On the other hand, he said, people could argue that because of legislative inaction it is only the Supreme Court that could deliver results.
