The news of the controversial JNU clips being authentic has yet again kindled the decades-old debate on Sedition vs Free Speech. There has been a plethora of opinions on the scope of Free Speech following this incident.
Ostensibly, the Indian race is an irascible one. Perhaps the repetitive use of the term 'sedition' in the way it has been portrayed is responsible for such attitude. It has created a much conception of it than has been enshrined in the IPC. Sedition is an extreme form of incitement of violence against the State and mere shouting of slogans, even anti-national, does not lead to sedition.
As per the Penal Code, a person is guilty of sedition, who,
" -----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."
Note: There are a few things that need to be kept in mind:
1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Hence, advocating revolution, or even an violent overthrow of State, does not constitute sedition, unless there is incitement to imminent violence.Therefore, despite an immoral and non-patriotic conduct of the highest order, Kanhaiya, Khalid and Bhattacharya cannot be legally tried for sedition.
Reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Expression were put for the primary purpose of ensuring that everyone had the space to enjoy one's freedom, without hurting the sentiments of another. Just exercising the right to put forward one's views doesn't fall under the purview of a crime as grave as sedition.
It is in the common knowledge of all that Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen and Aseem Trivedi are the notable ones among those who have been accused of this offence. But none of them have been actually proven guilty by the Apex Court.
Our forefathers were far-sighted enough and provided for us just the echt rights and restrictions. An amalgamation of pre-conceived notions, limited thought process and
a latent 'un-acceptance' of radical and liberal thought fails the very purpose of those week- long deliberations.
As Neal Boortz said, 'Free Speech was made to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.'
Ostensibly, the Indian race is an irascible one. Perhaps the repetitive use of the term 'sedition' in the way it has been portrayed is responsible for such attitude. It has created a much conception of it than has been enshrined in the IPC. Sedition is an extreme form of incitement of violence against the State and mere shouting of slogans, even anti-national, does not lead to sedition.
As per the Penal Code, a person is guilty of sedition, who,
" -----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."
Note: There are a few things that need to be kept in mind:
1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Hence, advocating revolution, or even an violent overthrow of State, does not constitute sedition, unless there is incitement to imminent violence.Therefore, despite an immoral and non-patriotic conduct of the highest order, Kanhaiya, Khalid and Bhattacharya cannot be legally tried for sedition.
Reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Expression were put for the primary purpose of ensuring that everyone had the space to enjoy one's freedom, without hurting the sentiments of another. Just exercising the right to put forward one's views doesn't fall under the purview of a crime as grave as sedition.
It is in the common knowledge of all that Arundhati Roy, Binayak Sen and Aseem Trivedi are the notable ones among those who have been accused of this offence. But none of them have been actually proven guilty by the Apex Court.
Our forefathers were far-sighted enough and provided for us just the echt rights and restrictions. An amalgamation of pre-conceived notions, limited thought process and
a latent 'un-acceptance' of radical and liberal thought fails the very purpose of those week- long deliberations.
As Neal Boortz said, 'Free Speech was made to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.'
No comments:
Post a Comment