Sedition an archaic law, enacted against freedom fighters: Kamini Jaiswal

Interview with Advocate, Supreme Court

When a group of Kashmiri students from a private university in Meerut cheered for Pakistan in an Asia Cup match on March 6, they were charged with sedition (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code), promoting enmity between different groups (Section 153 A) and mischief (Section 427). Around 67 students of Kashmiri origin were suspended from the university for three days. Later, following pressure from Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and other groups, the Uttar Pradesh government decided to withdraw the sedition charge. Supreme Court Advocate Kamini Jaiswal discusses the case, the law of sedition and its application with Ranjita Ganesan

Was the initial charge of sedition justified in this case?

It is absurd. They should treat a court as a court. How can you say the students created animosity between groups? This shows the extent of intolerance we are breeding in this country. I may not personally approve of what the students did, but this reaction is absurd. Sedition can be only against a government. Are they trying to say the cricket team is a government?

Would it be seen as sedition had the opponent that was cheered been Australia or England? Or is it being applied selectively here because of the context of the dispute?

See a game as a game and not as a war where the students are celebrating the defeat of India. This would absolutely not have happened if another country was the opponent. With elections around the corner, every party is trying to be seen as more patriotic than the other. In this country, everything runs around elections and vote bank politics. They think such a move will win Hindu votes.

Do the charges of 153 A and 427 stand in this case?

Nothing will stand in court. Section 153 A is a very serious charge. They cheered for a team and celebrated because they won, that is it. We don't know to what extent they celebrated but it has to be treated as a game. On the contrary, there must be action taken against those who have imposed these sections. This is a malicious action and it will create problems. It could create disaffection among a class of people.

Historically, do you recall cases where sedition was used correctly?

Sedition was only correctly applied in British times. This is an archaic law and such laws were enacted to deal with freedom fighters. It is high time the IPC was amended and not on a piecemeal basis.

Are laws like sedition being loosely interpreted, especially when sensitive matters such as those concerning Kashmir are involved?

Yes, this was the attitude when goons vandalised Prashant Bhushan's office for voicing his opinion on having a referendum. Shiv Sena also slapped a case under 153 A against Oxford University Press for the book on Shivaji that had historic facts. Shiv Sena activists had vandalised offices of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute where they burnt many antique books and precious documents. No action was taken against them. This tendency of the government to encourage vandals is dangerous.

Was the suspension of the students justified?

By doing this, you are alienating a particular section of society and this causes unrest, which can later be difficult to handle.

What would have been the right course to take?

Just ignore them. If you don't take note of these things, then whatever intention may have been behind them will fall through. What harm would have come if the state had not taken action in this particular incident? We need to be far-sighted. Today, it is a cricket match, tomorrow a book, and then it could be some paintings. We talk of liberalisation of the economy but before that we have to liberate the mind and thought-process.

For interview with Raian Karanjawala, managing partner of law firm Karanjawala & Co, visit mybs.in/f8036