Freedom Of Speech
Freedom of speech consists of the freedom to express one’s views in the form of expressed and implied manner. It is an important concept that is adopted by all democratic countries. Sedition and defamation are 2 concepts that limit the concept of freedom of speech. Sedition is a concept to prevent speech against the government that incites violence against it and defamation, on the other hand, refers to false statements that harm an individual’s reputation. But nowadays these 2 concepts are used adversely to limit the freedom of speech. The blog concludes with an opinion on how these 2 concepts are used in an adverse way to deter freedom of speech. Introduction It is well established historical fact that on numerous occasions Government is accused of using sedition and defamation law adversely to protect its interest and deter journalists, activists, and opposition political leaders. Using these provisions of the IPC and the constitution infringes the fundamental right enshrined under part III of the constitution of India and undermines the functioning of democracy in India. Whereas defamation is defined under section 499 of IPC as Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes. Constitutionality Of Sedition As Limit On Freedom Of Speech Sedition was a concept introduced in 1870 during the British Indian colonial government under section 124-A, with a view to suppressing dissent and controlling India’s Independence moment, which defined sedition as any act or attempt to bring hatred, contempt, or excite dissatisfaction towards government established by law in India. If we literally interpret this section, It says that whosoever by expressed or implied means brings or attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction towards the government established by law in India, this section puts a limitation on freedom of speech which results in infringement of fundamental right art.19 enshrined under part III of the Indian constitution. Cases There are many cases where the government used it in an adverse manner in its own interest against journalists and activists. Kishorechandr Wagmare, a journalist was charged with sedition for making cartoonist posts on social media sites. [1] A YouTuber was also charged with sedition for posting a video on his YouTube channel stating that PM had used facilities and terror incidents to obtain votes, In this case Supreme Court had laid out that every citizen has the right to criticize and comment on the actions of government and its official as long as he does not incite violence against the public. As a journalist addressing subjects of major importance so that enough attention might be given, can not be accused of propagating or misleading information. [2] In this case, the Supreme Court observed that expressing a point of view that differs from a decision made by the central government does not amount to sedition.[3] If we see sedition and the use of sedition by the government through the lens of Article 19 of the constitution of India, It is witnessed that the government in most cases uses this section against activists and journalists who are raising subjects in the interest of society and but such subjects are against the government of India. This clearly infringes on the principles of democratic values. Freedom of speech Freedom of speech is a very vast concept and there must be some limits that prevent the adverse use of this concept. Sedition puts limits upon it but if we interpret this section, the words ‘disaffection towards the government’ imply whosoever expresses his views which are against the government. Supreme Court in this regard said that a provision after its literal interpretation shall be interpreted by considering the antecedent history of the legislation. So this section was inserted by the British government to suppress the political movements and Indian freedom struggle and was framed with a view of colonial principles. In today’s era and in a country running on democratic principles this section is ultra vires to those principles.[4] There should be an amendment of some terms in section 124A, the section shall include the word ‘ insurrection’ instead of ‘disaffection’ which allows the citizens to freely express their disaffection towards governmental policies and conduct and limits such disaffection from gaining the tendency of violence. Thus this section in literal view is ultra vires with regard to the constitution of India. CONCLUSION In this blog, I analyzed the constitutionality of sedition and defamation laws in India and argued that they are often used by the government in an adverse manner to suppress freedom of speech and expression. The statement suggests that there should be amendments to these laws to align them with modern democratic values. The arguments presented in the statement are logical and coherent and are supported by examples and case laws. [1] Kishore Chandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021) [2] Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021) [3] Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021) [4] Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769 Written By – Rahul Aaryan