Retention of sedition law

(MainsGS2:Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.)

Context:

• The Law Commission of India in its 279th report has recommended retaining one of the most controversial sections of recent times i.e., Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on ‘sedition’.

Prevent the misuse:

• The Supreme Court of India, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India on May 11, 2022, had directed all State governments and the central government to keep in abeyance all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with regard to Section 124A IPC, as prima facie it felt that this Section was not in tune with the current social milieu. 
• However, The Law Commission concluded that it was necessary to retain it as it was useful in countering the threat to India’s internal security. 
• The Commission also felt that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, does not cover all elements of the offence envisaged under Section 124A IPC. 
• The Commission also recommended certain procedural guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 124A IPC.

Threats to Internal Security:

• The Law Commission report elaborated on the violence perpetrated by the Maoists pertaining to ‘Threats to India’s Internal Security’. 
• The Ministry of Home Affairs data, quoted in the report, show that the number of Maoist incidents ranged from 1,533 in 2004 to 509 in 2021 and the fatality varied from 566 to 147 in the same period. 
• It is also undisputed that the central agenda of the Maoists is to capture political power by overthrowing the democratically elected government through a protracted armed struggle and they need to be tackled stringently.

Negligible use of Section 124A IPC:

• Despite a dip in the overall Maoist violence over the years, Chhattisgarh still reports the maximum number of Maoist incidents. 
• While the number of Maoist incidents registered in the State varied from 445 in 2014 to 253 in 2021, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data show that the number of cases registered (only) under Section 124A IPC was zero in the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2020, and varied from one to a maximum of three in the remaining years between 2014 and 2021. 
• Even the cases registered under the UAPA were close to three per year in the same period. 
• Thus, it is clear that the use of Section 124A IPC in fighting Maoism has been negligible. 

UAPA seems more objective:

•  The Supreme Court has held that ‘criticising government’ does not fall within the ambit of sedition, the ‘unlawful activity’ as defined in the UAPA seems more objective and less problematic. 
• The only difference between Section 124A IPC and this provision of the UAPA is that in place of the words ‘Government established by law in India’, the word ‘India’ is used in the UAPA
• Any hurdle before any such prosecution under the UAPA that requires central government sanction can be removed by tweaking Section 45 of the UAPA to authorise State governments to act as well as grant sanction for prosecution.

Conclusion:

• It would be more democratic if all State governments and political parties deliberate on the Law Commission’s report, and public opinion sought to arrive at a more participative (if not unanimous) and agreeable decision.