Law Commission chairman Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi defends the recommendation to retain the sedition law, citing the need to safeguard the unity and integrity of India in the current situation from Kashmir to Kerala and Punjab to the North-East.
Special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act do not cover the offense of sedition, necessitating the presence of a specific law on sedition.
The colonial legacy of the sedition law is not a valid ground for its repeal, as many countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, and Germany have similar laws.
The 22nd Law Commission report supports retaining section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with safeguards to prevent misuse.
Opposition parties criticize the recommendation, alleging an attempt to stifle dissent and voices against the ruling party.
The preliminary inquiry for sedition cases will be conducted by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above within seven days of the incident.
Permission from the competent government authority will be required before lodging an FIR for sedition based on the preliminary inquiry report.
Guidelines may be issued by the central government to clarify the circumstances under which the offense of sedition is committed.
The Law Commission has not recommended an enhancement of punishment, but suggests increasing the punishment from three years to seven years with or without fine to bridge the existing gap.
The sedition law is considered a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Sedition laws exist in various countries, and even the UK repealed its sedition law in 2009 after enacting sufficient provisions to deal with similar offenses.
To provide clarity, the panel suggests adding the phrase "with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder" to section 124A, based on the Kedarnath Singh judgment of the Supreme Court.
The panel also recommends adding an explanation defining the expression 'tendency' in relation to sedition.
COMMENTS