Sedition vs dissent

The law is increasingly being misused against critics

One of the ironies of the current political climate is that a draconian colonial-era law that served to stifle dissent against the transgressions of an imperial government is being applied with increasing frequency in a country where a party returned to Parliament for a second term with a larger popular majority. The arrest of 21-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi underlines this point. Ms Ravi was arrested by the cyber wing of the Delhi Police for editing a “toolkit” linked to the farmers’ protest and remanded to five days in custody. This toolkit, a document asking protestors around the world to participate in the protests, was found to have links to a non-governmental organisation associated with the Khalistan movement. First, the Delhi Police did not follow due process despite its assurance: A copy of the first information report was made available to Ms Ravi only after a court ordered it. Second, the police is still investigating the case, so the onus is on Ms Ravi to prove her innocence, rather than the police proving her guilt.

Her case is symptomatic of several others who have been arrested under this section. Almost a year to date, a 19-year-old student activist Amulya Leona was arrested in Bengaluru for pronouncing a pro-Pakistan slogan as one phrase in the course of a protest speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). She was released after 110 days and barred from making public statements or accessing social media. Around the same time, a Muslim student, Sharjeel Imam, did not enjoy even this level of leniency from a Mumbai court for an anti-CAA speech. These young people are among the hundreds whose criticisms of the state have been interpreted by the security authorities as seditious.   

Though section 124A has been applied on similar flimsy grounds under earlier administrations — activists Binayak Sen and Arundhati Roy were charged under it as were those protesting the Kudankulam nuclear power project in 2012-13, all under the United Progressive Alliance — the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been particularly zealous in its application. According to National Crime Records Bureau statistics, the number of cases filed under section 124A increased 160 per cent between 2016 and 2019, the bulk from BJP-ruled states. Yet just 3 per cent of these arrests result in convictions. The fact is that few of these arrests appear to meet the criterion set out by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962, that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government, by way of criticism or comment, as long as it does not “incite people to violence”.

These points were reiterated by the Bombay High Court in 2015. Yet, in Mr Imam’s case, a sessions court denied him bail on specious grounds that he was an “enemy of the country” and a slogan demanding his release had been raised at an LGBTQ Solidarity Gathering. But on Tuesday, a courageous additional session judge in Delhi felt the need to repeat these basic principles. Granting bail to two activists connected with the farmers’ protest, he stated that sedition laws can’t be used to quieten dissent. That is a clear reminder to the government that India is a democracy where peaceful dissent, comment and protest remain fundamental rights.