Freedom of speech and expression vis-a-vis sedition law

Personal liberty is the most important of all fundamental rights. Article 19 to 22 of the Constitution of India deals with different aspects of these basic rights. However, Article 191 provides with the most fundamental right- The right to freedom with further six basic rights, that are-

1. Freedom of speech and expression

2. Freedom of assembling peaceably and without arms

3. Freedom to form associations or unions or co-operative societies

4. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India

5. Freedom to reside and to settle in any part of the country

6. [* * *]2

7. Freedom of profession, occupation, trade, or business

However, the ‘six freedoms’ are not at all absolute. The guarantee of each right is restricted by the constitution itself by imposing reasonable restrictions provided in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. If people were given absolute liberty and freedom without any social control, the result will be ruined. But, a free democracy is featured as governance by the self, i.e, through a choice based representation, and in such a society, there can be easy conflicts between the state and the individual’s opinion. Therefore, punishing a person for expressing his disagreeable opinion in a democracy like India would be very arbitrary for the purpose of democracy.

Freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the basic fundamental rights given under part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution of India where Article 19 provides for ‘Right to freedom’.

Clause (1) of Article 19 provides for freedom of speech and expression which means the right to express one’s own convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures, or any other mode. It thus includes the expression of one’s ideas through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gestures, signs, etc. It also includes freedom of the press as it implies the freedom to express through publication also. Free propagation of ideas and opinions is the necessary objective and it can be done through platforms or through the press.

Everyone should be able to form their own propaganda and opinions and also share them freely with others. However, the following are the restrictions imposed by the Constitution on Freedom of speech and expression-

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India-

Statements harming the sovereignty and integrity of India are prohibited under this clause.

2. Security of the State-

Limitations are also imposed on the freedom of speech and expression in the scope of the state’s security.

3. Friendly relations with the Foreign States-

Restrictions are also imposed with the intention to avoid malicious publicity against friendly relations with foreign states that can disrupt those friendly relations.

4. Public Order-

This restriction was introduced with the first constitutional amendment in 1951. It implies that there would be restrictions on freedom of speech and expression if it harms public peace and order.

5. Decency or Morality-

Freedom of speech and expression is limited on account of decency and integrity under sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

6. Contempt of Court-

Those statements and actions are restricted which surpasses the reasonable limit and amounts to contempt of court.

7. Defamation-

Defamatory statements that can harm or injure another man’s reputation are restricted under the clause.

8. Incitement of an offense-

It was also added by the first constitutional amendment in 1951. It explains that the right to freedom of speech and expression is limited in its scope if it incites someone to commit an offense.

With imposing the above-given restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, constitution-makers tried to ensure the supremacy of the constitution over the mere criticism by the citizens.

Sedition law

Sedition is defined in section 124A of IPC5 as either oral or written words, or signs, or any virtual representation, or otherwise, that brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. It also provides that such sedition will be punishable by imprisonment up to lifetime or fine or with both.

Background

The history of sedition laws can be traced from the time in 1860 when the Indian Penal Code was enacted by Britishers in India. The Britishers used this provision to suppress the Wahabi movements and the freedom movements by Indians like Lokmanya Tilak etc. Tilak was very politically active at that time, he established and published two daily newspapers, i.e, Kesari in Marathi and Mahratta in English. Once he published some events related to Maratha King Shivaji as ‘Shivaji’s utterances’, Tilak was charged with the law of sedition as the judge presiding over his case held that mere inciting feelings of enmity against the government would be sedition, and punished Lokmanya Tilak with 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.

In 1922, Mahatma Gandhi, who was also charged with sedition at that time for some articles for Young India alleged that the sedition law was designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens.

In 1979, India also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which implied that internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of speech and expression.

Prashant Bhushan’s Case

Senior advocate Prashant Bushan recently tweeted twice against Supreme Court, i.e, On 27th June, 2020, he tweeted to criticize the role of the supreme court and the last four Chief justices of India, and again on 29th June 2020, he shared an image of CJI Bobde criticizing him for sitting on Rs. 50 lakh motorbike, which belonged to a BJP leader.

On 22nd July 2020, Supreme Court initiated suo moto proceedings against Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra contended that this is a serious contempt of court committed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan on 14th August 2020. They held that these tweets can shake public confidence in the supreme court and the judiciary.

On 18th August 2020, more than 1,500 lawyers gathered and shared their opinion that the judgment which the supreme court is giving is not satisfactory and they find this major actor unsuitable for such minor tweets.

On 20th August 2020, after a back and forth an argument in the supreme court, it was held that three days’ time will be given to Prashant Bhushan to reconsider his statement and present an unconditional apology.

On 24th August 2020, he refused to apologize and still stated that there was nothing contemptuous in his tweets.

On 31st August 2020, finally, the supreme court announced its punishment against Prashant Bhushan of fine for Re. 1.

The advocate paid the fine to the Supreme court registry but filed a review petition and still contended that there should be free speech and expression. No citizen should be denied of it merely on the basis of criticism of the Supreme court or Government.

Freedom of speech and expression over sedition law

Many times, state and center governments try to invoke section 124-A deliberately against activists, detractors, writers, even cartoonists just to put down their disagreeing opinions. Allowing individuals to freely express their views and opinions promotes the good policies by the government and keeps a check on the poor ones. There is always an apprehension that the Government often misuses the provisions of sedition law to suppress constructive criticism and political dissent.

Conclusion

The right to freedom of speech and expression is an essence of a free democracy. Citizens have their right to voice in a democracy and that should not be denied by anyone, not even the government. However, as citizens would have the right to freedom of speech and expression, they should also remember that as citizens they also have some duties towards the state. Democracy would only work in peace if states and individuals would think for the benefit of the nation first, and then their own.