NCP chief Sharad Pawar created a stir on Thursday with his affidavit before the Bhima Koregaon inquiry commission, wherein he said that the archaic sedition law should be repealed. He said there were acts like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in place that could effectively deal with these activities.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with sedition charges for trying to topple the government. The offence is punishable with life imprisonment and the accused has no chances of getting bail even during the trial.
A section of lawyers echo the NCP chief’s sentiments, saying that the section is being more misused than used these days; anyone and everyone who criticises the government is arrested under the stringent sedition.
IPS officer turned lawyer YP Singh said that in most of the cases innocents were being framed. “Law says that you can’t punish even one innocent person, even if it is at the cost of setting free a hundred guilty persons,” said Singh.
If one looks at the recent cases where the sedition charges have been invoked, then most of them are fairly covered under other law and order provisions. “One can stretch law any way one wants as it can be interpreted in several ways. However, by the time it is decided, the person has languished in jail for too long,” added Singh, adding that unless there is an armed revolt or an uprising, sedition charges should not be invoked.
Human rights lawyer Mihir Desai has been voicing his dissent against the draconian section for a decade now. “I have been saying for over 10 years that the section needs to be repealed. The problem with this section is that it is vaguely drafted and defined. It cannot be used to arrest just anyone. It is extensively misused,” said Desai.
There are different sections to deal with offences covered under the definition of sedition – waging war against the country, causing hatred between communities, inciting people to violence, and others. You don’t need sedition for that, added Desai.
However, advocate Shekhar Jagtap, who had challenged an August 2015 government circular regarding invocation of sedition charges, opined that provision of section 124A of the IPC are different from the UAPA. “Toppling a government has nothing to do with terrorist activities and vice-versa. Terrorism is irrespective of whose government is in power,” said Jagtap, adding, “Terrorism is not restricted to any particular country and often there are cases of cross border terrorism.”
