Desirability Of Sedition Laws In Modern India

Shreya, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, IP University, New Delhi

Introduction

“The right to air an opinion, to dissent, intellectual discourse are the heart and soul of the freedom of speech and expression which stands conferred upon all citizens by our Constitution’’- held by Hon. Justice Yashwant Verma in the complaint case named Arun Jaitley V/s Union of India accentuate the noteworthy nature of Part III2 of our Indian Constitution, explicitly the freedom of speech and expression.

Personal liberty is a precious right. So did the Founding Fathers believe because, after giving to people Constitution, the second object, was to protect the people against the government. That is why, while conferring extensive powers on the government, they assured to the people a Bill of Rights by Part III of the Constitution, protecting against executive and legislative to cover these rights is an assignment tutored by all history and all mortal experience. Our Constitution makers had lived through bitter years and seen an alien Government trample upon human rights which the country had fought hard to preserve. They believed like Jefferson that" an optional authoritarianism wasn't the Government we fought for". And, thus, while arming the Government with large powers to help lawlessness from within and subjection from without, they took care to ensure that those powers weren't abused to incapacitate the liberties of the people. It's a falseness to regard abecedarian rights as a gift from the State to its citizens. individualities retain introductory mortal rights singly of any Constitution by reason of the introductory fact that they're members of the mortal race.

It is a fallacy to regard fundamental rights as a gift from the State to its citizens. Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the basic fact that they are members of the human race3. A well-bred facet of these remarkable fundamental rights is their subjection to certain considerations or simply understood as necessary restrictions namely security of state, public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court, and incitement to an offence for the sake of ensuring unharmed exercise by each citizen. But the moment we enter the realm of practical reality, the situation dramatically changes.

The bitter truth of society is absence of criticism tolerant behaviour. Nowadays, a slightest criticism leads to rebellious circumstances emerging in every nook and corner of the affected ones, be it an organization or society. And in such circumstances, when the one victimized is government, the most prominent weapon in the hands of governmental authorities, i.e. imposing charges for seditious act gains limelight. However, healthy criticism or even intellectual disagreement with a particular view is not a crime. The view expressed may be inferior or indeed unpalatable to some. still, the same doesn't render it liable to execution under the Penal Code. Justice isn't a sheltered virtue she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and regardful, indeed though open, commentary of ordinary men".

Approving views expressed by Brandies J. in Whitney v. California4 and quoted by the Supreme Court in case of Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India that:

“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify repression of free speech and assembly. Men stressed witches and burnt women. It's the function of speech to free men from the thrall of illogical fears” correctly explained the significance of free speech in abetting individualities to rise above the India's commitment to a democratic system, popularly known as "By the People, For the People, Of the People," is one feature that truly stands it apart from other nations. It is the right to express oneself, whether that be through freely choosing the government officials responsible for running the country, engaging in one's preferred religion, or stating one's opinions about what is appropriate or inappropriate in public. In fact, it is our constitution that places emphasis on these authorities in order to preserve a system of checks and balances and to periodically examine what is in the best interests of society and what is not. Despite being granted such privileges, a person finds himself stuck in the cycle of being subjected to governmental penalties. There is a constant fear manifested in people that they deter themselves from surfacing their views with respect to anything found unfavourable.