‘Mere sloganeering cannot invite sedition’

It cannot be invoked every time, says ex-Law Commission chief in the backdrop of JNU, Assam cases

Former Law Commission chairman B.S. Chauhan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that sedition can only be invoked when a seditious comment results in violence, former Law Commission chairman B.S. Chauhan has said, adding that the court in its various judgments has reiterated that mere sloganeering could not invite the charge.

The Assam police had on January 10 registered a case of sedition against scholar Hiren Gohain, 80, for allegedly having said at a public meeting that a demand for sovereignty might arise if the Centre ignored the voices of the Assamese people opposed to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016.

Similar cases were filed against Akhil Gogoi, leader of the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti, and activist-journalist Manjit Mahanta, who were protesting against the Bill that seeks to provide citizenship to non-Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Rethink or repeal

The 21st Law Commission, the Centre’s topmost advisory body on legal reform, headed by Mr. Chauhan had last year published a consultation paper recommending that it was time to rethink or even repeal the provision on sedition (Section 124A) from the Indian Penal Code. He demitted office on September 1, 2018, and a new Law Commission has not been constituted since then.

Asked about the JNU sedition case, Mr. Chauhan told

The Hindu that it all depended on what was argued before the court. “The court may refuse to file charges as sloganeering has been held not to invite sedition by the Supreme Court,” he said.

On January 14, the Delhi police filed a 1,200-page chargesheet in a case pertaining to 2016 when “anti-India” slogans were allegedly raised on JNU campus at an event to mark the anniversary of the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru.

Mr. Chauhan said the working paper on sedition was brought after a reference by the Supreme Court. “The Commission had conducted seminars, invited people to speak on the subject… many people said it should be removed and many said the provision should be made more stringent. We wanted comments from people. There are many other statutes where all such activities are covered,” he said.

Recalling that sedition had earlier been scrapped by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Allahabad High Court, Mr. Chauhan said in 1962 the Supreme Court had, however, upheld the law.

“The SC has always said that unless violence follows, charge of sedition should not be invoked. We were of the opinion that charges of sedition cannot necessarily be framed in every case,” he said.

As per the Centre’s reply to Parliament, during 2014-2015 as many as 112 cases of sedition were registered across the country and 36 people were chargesheeted. However, police secured convictions in only two cases during the period.

Antiquated provision

The Commission had invited public opinion on the prospect of either redefining or doing away with Section 124A in the “largest democracy of the world, considering that right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy”.

“Why should India retain sedition when the British, who introduced sedition to oppress Indians, have themselves abolished the law in their country,” the panel asked.

Sedition attracts imprisonment from three years to life.