New Delhi: Stating that “everyone has the right to speak in a democracy”, Union Home Minister Amit Shah Friday announced that the offence of sedition will be “completely repealed” in a proposed legislation introduced in the Lok Sabha which seeks to replace the existing Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, Section 150 of the new bill recommends imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to seven years for those who “excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India, or indulges in or commits any such act”.
“The Britishers had made a rule on sedition to save their administration. This government has taken a historic decision to completely repeal the sedition law. Yaha loktantra hai, sabko bolne ka adhikar hai (this is a democracy where everyone has the right to speak),” Shah said, while introducing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bill.
Also read: The events that led up to Indian courts declaring sedition law ‘unconstitutional’ in 1950
Replacing Section 124 of IPC
In its existing form, Section 124A of the IPC which deals with offences on sedition, reads that “whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India”, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to three years.
This section has been dropped from the new bill, which has now been sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs for scrutiny.
The Supreme Court had on 11 May last year put on hold Section 124A of the IPC pending “reexamination” of the provision by the Centre. The order came in response to a batch of petitions in the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
However, the Law Commission of India recommended in June this year that the law on sedition be retained as “repealing the legal provision can have serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country”.
The commission had suggested that 124A be amended instead, “so as to bring about more clarity in the interpretation, understanding and usage of the provision”.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: Politicians, editors, a retired Major General: The petitioners taking on sedition law in SC