Skip to main content

Include promise to repeal sedition law in Congress poll manifesto: Chidambaram told

P Chidambaram
Counterview Desk
In an open letter, the advocacy group South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre’s Ravi Nair has asked senior Congress leader P Chidambaram to include the promise to repeal sedition law, Section 124-A, IPC in Congress’ election manifesto for 2019, even expecting several Congress-ruled or supported states to take “immediate” steps to repeal it through state amendments. The letter comes following Chidambaram, a former Union home minister, condemning the “malicious” charge of sedition against Kanhaiya Kumar.
The letter regrets that the sedition law was “misused” during successive Congress governments, too, though pointing out, the present BJP government has used “in a manner that the worst authoritarian anywhere on the planet would find difficult to emulate.” Nair insists, “A formal commitment in the Congress Party manifesto will draw a line under the Congress Party’s past on this important issue.”

Text of the letter:

We would like to reiterate the request that the Congress Party consider the inclusion of repeal of Section 124A in its 2019 election manifesto. I hope that State Governments in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Puducherry and Karnataka will also be urged to take immediate steps for its repeal through State Amendments in order to send a salutary signal to the present Union Government and the BJP ruled states that harassing citizens for exercising their democratic right to question the government and its agencies goes against the idea of India.
We were heartened to read your statement on the malicious sedition charge filed by the Delhi Police against Kanhaiya Kumar and other students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and we welcome your view that there needs to be a debate on whether such a law has a place in the laws of a democratic republic.
While your reaction is of great import, coming as it is from a former Union Home Minister and eminent lawyer, we also hope that you and Mr. Kapil Sibal, another eminent lawyer from your party who has called for the law to be scrapped, will initiate a discussion in the Congress party and ensure that the party includes the repeal of Section 124A of the IPC in its manifesto for the 2019 general elections. I hope the provision will be eviscerated from the criminal justice system once the Congress Party becomes a major pillar of any new power structure that emerges following the general elections.
While the above-mentioned section was misused during successive earlier Congress governments, the present BJP government has used in a manner that the worst authoritarian anywhere on the planet would find difficult to emulate. A formal commitment in the Congress Party manifesto will draw a line under the Congress Party’s past on this important issue.
In 2016, the section was used to file sedition charges against the President of your party, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, and leaders of other political parties in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Section 124A, which was introduced in 1870 by the British via an amendment in the Penal Code, was also used to imprison Bal Gangadhar Tilak and charge Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad for allegedly causing“disaffection” towards the Government.
It is unbecoming for an independent India to continue with such an undemocratic colonial era provision. It is a cognizable, non-bailable and a non-compoundable offence.With mandatory compensation not being an enforceable right in India and only allowed at a judge’s discretion, which is extremely rare, the provision has become a convenient tool to suppress not merely political opposition but stifle dissent of the mildest kind. Successful criminal action against law enforcement personnel for malicious prosecution has not been possible thus far for a variety of reasons.
The safeguards available through judicial determination based on the precedents set in the case of Balwant Singh v State of Punjab and Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar have been defeated due to judicial delay, prohibitive legal costs and the lack of proper investigations by incompetent police machinery.

In the case of Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled:
“Some more overt act was required to bring home the charge… The police officials exhibited lack of maturity and more of sensitivity in arresting the appellants for raising the slogans – which arrest -and not the casual raising of one or two slogans – could have created a law and order situation, keeping in view the tense situation prevailing on the date of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. In situations like that, over sensitiveness sometimes is counterproductive and can result in inviting trouble. Raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other groups.”
Most citizens today are conscious of how the provision can and is being abused by an authoritarian right-wing, Hindutva fundamentalist government. It is essential to repeal such laws to ensure the survival of India’s democratic system and values. The Congress Party needs to take the lead in building a consensus to repeal a law that inhibits non-violent freedom of speech and expression.
Since the general elections are still a few months away, there is still time before a new non-BJP government comes to power at the Centre, the Congress Party leadership must affirm its commitment to repeal the sedition law and encourage States with Congress Governments in power (Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Puducherry and Karnataka, in coalition) to bring state amendments to the IPC to repeal Section 124A.
Kanhaiya Kumar
Sedition law under IPC is criminal in nature and hence falls under the Concurrent List. This implies that the Union Parliament as well as the State Legislature can make and amend laws on sedition.
As you are aware, the legislative procedure for State amendments to the IPC is the same as introducing a new law. The procedure required therein is given under the Constitution of India.
The amendment bill needs to be introduced in one of the Houses of the legislature (in case of bicameral houses) and needs to be passed by a simple majority by both Houses before the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly (since it is an ordinary bill). In the Legislative Council, the bill needs to be passed within three months from the date of laying it on the table, or in case it is rejected, within one month after it has been passed for the second time by the Legislative Assembly. Once passed by the House or Houses, the bill is sent for the assent of the Governor, who can either give his/her assent, send the bill back to the House or Houses for consideration or reserve the bill for consideration of the President.
We are cognizant of the fact that the bill will face impediments when it reaches the stage of assent as it will be hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
The above-mentioned Article provides that:
“254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

The Supreme Court has explained the application of the Article as thus:
Article 254 of the Constitution makes provision firstly, as to what would happen in the case of conflict between a Central and State law with regard to the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List, and secondly, for resolving such conflict. Article 254(1) enunciates the normal rule that in the event of a conflict between a Union and a State law in the concurrent field, the former prevails over the latter. Clause (1) lays down that if a State law relating to a Concurrent subject is ‘repugnant’ to a Union law relating to that subject, then, whether the Union law is prior or later in time, the Union law will prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void. To the general rule laid down in Clause (1), Clause (2) engrafts an exception, viz, that if the President assents to a State law which has been reserved for his consideration, it will prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of the Union, both laws dealing with a Concurrent subject. In such a case, the Central Act will give way to the State Act only to the extent of inconsistency between the two, and no more. In short, the result of obtaining the assent of the President to a State Act which is inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a Concurrent subject would be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to that State only. The predominance of the State law may however be taken away if Parliament legislates under the Proviso to Clause (2).
A Bill which attracts Article 254(2) or Article 304(b) where it is introduced or moved in the Legislative Assembly of a State without the previous sanction of the President or which attracted Article 31(3) as it was then in force, or falling under the second proviso to Article 200 has necessarily to be reserved for the consideration of the President.
Therefore, once the law is passed in the State Legislatures, it will require the assent of the President in order to come into effect. Given the present political situation in the country, it is certain that the current President may not give assent to the bill. However, the passage of the bill by the State Legislatures will stand as strong testament to the rejection and protest against the draconian implementation of an un-democratic sedition law to stifle dissent and freedom of speech.
In the event of the President rejecting the bill, which will be no surprise, the non-BJP State Governments should publicly resolve not to implement the sedition law in their states as a mark of their protest and abhorrence against a draconian law that goes against our democratic values.
We would like to reiterate the request that the Congress Party consider the inclusion of repeal of Section 124A in its 2019 election manifesto. I hope that State Governments in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Puducherry and Karnataka will also be urged to take immediate steps for its repeal through State Amendments in order to send a salutary signal to the present Union Government and the BJP ruled states that harassing citizens for exercising their democratic right to question the government and its agencies goes against the idea of India. It will also assert, in no uncertain terms, the political consensus of all progressive parties on ensuring the freedom of expression and association, which are the cornerstone of our democracy.

Comments

TRENDING

August 22 to be observed as Apostasy Day: International coalition of ex-Muslim groups

By Our Representative
In a unique move, an international coalition of ex-Muslim organisations has decided to observe August 22, 2020 as the Apostasy Day. To be observed for “the abandonment or renunciation of religion”, the coalition, calling upon people to join the call, said, the decision to observe the Apostasy Day has been taken because of apostasy is “punishable by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen.”

Buddhist shrines massively destroyed by Brahmanical rulers in "pre-Islamic" era: Historian DN Jha's survey

By Our Representative
Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book, "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

RSS' 25,000 Shishu Mandirs 'follow' factory school model of Christian missionaries

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*
The executive committee of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) recently decided to drop the KISS University in Odisha as the co-host of the World Anthropology Congress-2023. The decision is driven by the argument that KISS University is a factory school.

India must recognise: 4,085 km Himalayan borders are with Tibet, not China

By Tenzin Tsundue, Sandeep Pandey*
There has as been a cancerous wound around India’s Himalayan neck ever since India's humiliating defeat during the Chinese invasion of India in 1962. The recent Galwan Valley massacre has only added salt to the wound. It has come to this because, when China invaded the neighbouring country Tibet in 1950, India was in high romance with the newly-established communist regime under Mao Zedong after a bloody revolution.

Time to give Covid burial, not suspend, World Bank's 'flawed' Doing Business ranking

By Maju Varghese*
On August 27, the World Bank came out with a statement suspending the Doing Business Report. The statement said that a number of irregularities have been reported regarding changes to the data in the Doing Business 2018 and Doing Business 2020 reports, published in October 2017 and 2019. The changes in the data were inconsistent with the Doing Business methodology.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur*
Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Delhi riots: Cops summoning, grilling, intimidating young to give 'false' evidence

Counterview Desk
More than 440 concerned citizens have supported the statement issued by well-known bureaucrat-turned-human rights activist Harsh Mander ‘We will not be silenced’ which said that the communal riots in Delhi in February 2020 have not been caused by any conspiracy, as alleged by the Delhi Police, but by “hate speech and provocative statements made by a number of political leaders of the ruling party.”

WHO chief ignores India, cites Pak as one of 7 top examples in fight against Covid-19

By Our Representative
In a move that would cause consternation in India’s top policy makers in the Modi government, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization (WHO) director-general, has singled out Pakistan among seven countries that have set “examples” in investing in a healthier and safer future in order to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tata Mundra: NGOs worry as US court rules World Bank can't be sued for 'damages'

By Kate Fried, Mir Jalal*
On August 24 evening, a federal court ruled that the World Bank Group cannot be sued for any damage caused by its lending, despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the same case that these institutions can be sued for their “commercial activity” in the United States.