(Justice) R. A. JAHAGIRDAR IS NO MORE
(Justice) R.A. Jahagirdar, a former judge of the Bombay High Court,
well-known Radical Humanist, civil libertarian and exponent of democratic
and secular values breathed his last in the morning on 23 February
2011. The whole PUCL family condoles the demise of its 82 years old
dedicated and committed leader, friend and great scholar.
– Mahi Pal Singh, Secretary, PUCL.
Inside:
MARCH 2011 Rs. 10
PUCL MEMBERSHIP
INDIA
Patron Rs. 2000
Life Rs. 1000
Annual Rs. 50
FOREIGN
Annual Indian Rs
equivalent of
US $15
Annual Subscription : PUCL BULLETIN
w.e.f. March 1, 2010 INDIA
PUCL Members Rs. 100
Non-Members Rs. 120
Libraries-Institutions Rs. 150
OVERSEAS
PUCL Members US $50
Non-Members US $100
Libraries, Institutions US $120
Is the Law on Sedition Compatible with
Democracy? – Prabhakar Sinha (1)
PRESS STATEMENTS, LETTERS AND NEWS:
Minutes – National Secretariat Meeting (2);
Appeal to the Maoists to Release
Abducted Collector (3); Press Release –
PUCL Condemn Encounters in Kashipur
(6); A.P. PUCL: (1) Summary of the
Symposium on Land Rights (7); (2)
Demand Release of Binayak Sen (9);
Dumka PUCL: Condolence Message on
Surendra Mohan (11); Seema Azad’s Letter
(12); Protest Seminar against the Arrest
of Seema Azad (12); West Bengal: (1)
Street Corners by the PUCL (12); (2) Stop
Violence and Murder Politics (13); MASUM
Condemns Binayak Sen Conviction (14);
Impressive Rally In Raipur (15); Rajasthan
PUCL Demanding Release of Binayak Sen
(15); Gujarat PUCL: PUCL Delegation
Meets the Governor (16); Brief Reports
on Encounter Killings’ in Orissa (17).
ARTICLES, REPORTS & DOCUMENTS:
Mere Membership of Banned Outfit Won’t Attract
Criminal Action: Court – J. Venkatesan (4);
Karnataka PUCL: PUCL Response to
Somashekhar Commission Findings (5);
Basangamali Encounter (5); Surendra Mohan:
An Obituary – Prem Singh (9); Police Harassment
to an Educational Institution (13); Human
Rights Janjagran Meeting (14); The Losing
Is the Law on Sedition Compatible
with Democracy?
Prabhakar Sinha
The registering of a case of sedition against Ms Arundhati Roy, Syed
Ali Gilani etc. for their speeches made at a convention on ‘Azadi the Only
Way’ for Kashmir is bound to appall all who are committed to the core
values of democracy and human rights. It hardly makes any difference that
the case has been registered on the direction of a court and not by the
police. So long as this anti- democratic law, which is the legacy of the
colonial British government, is retained by the Republic of India, the courts
are bound to implement them. However, a plain reading of the provision on
sedition (u/s 124A of the I.P.C.) makes it clear that such laws have no
place in a democracy. It provides that ‘whoever by words, either spoken, or
written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the government established by law in India, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added’ It is obvious
that it is only an authoritarian government -foreign or local- which can make
excitement or disaffection against a government a criminal offence. Under
a democratic system, it is the normal function of the opposition parties to
create disaffection against the government with a view to oust it from power
by mobilising popular support and replace it if possible. Even groups and
individuals aggrieved by the policies of a government have the right to create
public opinion against it and campaign to dethrone it. The whole process
of opposing the existing government in a democracy is to create disaffection
against it by drawing attention to its short- comings like corruption, sell
out to certain interests – Indian or foreign-, incompetence or alleged antipeople
character. Slogans like ‘Sadi-gali Sarkar ko Ek Dhakka Aur Do’
(Give a final push to this rotten government’) ‘Singhasan Khali Karo ki
Janta Aati Hai (Vacate the throne, the people are coming’- i.e., to occupy
it) are out and out acts of sedition under the present law (u/s 124A).
The description of the elected government as ‘ the government
established by law in India ‘ in the provision also leads to the inescapable
PUCL BULLETIN, MARCH 2011 2
conclusion that the draconian
provision was enacted by the colonial
government and has been retained
by the rulers of the Republic of India
to suppress the voice of dissent. In
fact, elsewhere in the Indian Penal
Code (I.P.C.), the words government
of India or the State governments
occur to refer to the Union or State
Government instead of ‘government
established by law in India’ giving
credence to the view that the
provision has been blindly retained.
Similarly S 125 of the I.P.C. has been
retained which makes’ waging war
against any Asiatic Power in alliance
with the Government of India or at
peace with Government of India’ a
criminal offence punishable with
imprisonment for life . The reference
to the Asiatic Power in alliance with
or at peace with the government of
India is the relic of the Imperial British
rule when the Imperial Government
formed alliances against its rivals
Powers. Today, there are no entities
known as Asiatic Powers and India
is not in alliance with any such
power. India, after independence, has
been one of the chief architects of
the Non-aligned Movement and
continues to be at peace with all
countries. The repressive relic of the
Imperial British Government
continues to be retained by the rulers
of democratic India and may be
misused also.
The law in its present form also
obliterates the distinction between
the State and the Government. It is
an indisputable fact that the State is
permanent and sovereign, but the
government is neither sovereign nor
permanent. The Indian State would
continue to exist while the
government may go on changing.
Thus, to oppose a government,
attack its policies and carry on a
campaign to alienate the people from
it to oust it by legitimate means is
the right of a people in a democracy,
and it cannot be misconstrued as
sedition.
Thus, the government or some
people may consider Ms Arundhati
Roy’s view that Azadi is the only
solution of Kashmir problem
seriously flawed and for her view is a
nail in our democracy’s coffin apart
from being illogical. How does
speaking in favour of Azadi for
Kashmir attract S 124 A of the I.P.C.?
Is it an act of bringing the Government
of India into hatred or contempt or
creating disaffection against it? To
support Azadi for Kashmir -rightly or
wrongly- is only to oppose the
Kashmir policy of the Government of
India which every Indian has the right
to do. It is a problem created by the
rulers who not only failed to win the
mind and the hearts of the peaceful
people of Kashmir but have alienated
a large number of people and created
the present mess. After creating this
problem, they have no moral or legal
right to ask the people not to discuss
it and mind their own business. After
all, it is our brethren- Kashmiris and
the others- who are dying there, it is
our resources which are being used
and misused there, and it is our heart
which bleeds at every death of an
innocent Indian on either side in this
domestic conflict, and it is our right
and also the duty to join the search
for a solution without any threat from
the government. In a democracy, the
people have the right to discuss and
their representatives the right to
decide.
The anachronistic imperial law
on sedition is a direct attack on our
freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by the Constitution and
should be scrapped forthwith.
