TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Bogey of sedition

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

IN two judgments this week, the Supreme Court has stood up for the media’s right to criticise or comment on the government’s functioning — so long as there is no incitement to violence or any intention of creating public disorder. Quashing a sedition case registered against journalist Vinod Dua for his alleged comments targeting the Prime Minister, the court invoked the landmark judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) and ruled that “it is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that Sections 124A (sedition) and 505 (public mischief) of the IPC must step in.” On Monday, the court had given protection to two Telugu news channels which had been booked under the sedition law for airing views against the Andhra Pradesh government. In that case, the SC said the ambit and parameters of the colonial-era law required interpretation, particularly with regard to the right of the electronic and print media to broadcast/publish content that may be critical of any government anywhere in the country.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court and the High Courts have been repeatedly harking back to the 1962 verdict to specify what amounts to sedition and what doesn’t, besides taking a serious note of the misuse of the draconian law to stifle the citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It’s disturbing that sedition cases slapped against journalists and activists are on the rise in recent years. However, most of these cases don’t have a leg to stand on in a court of law as these are largely coercive tactics aimed at silencing dissent and criticism. No wonder their conviction rate, which was 33 per cent in 2016, dropped to just 3 per cent in 2019.

Advertisement

It is hoped that the latest judgments will encourage mediapersons to do their job fearlessly and at the same time deter law enforcement agencies from lodging sedition FIRs at the drop of a hat. The verdicts should also serve to caution the powers that be to avoid reducing the law to a terrorising tool.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement