Mr Patel’s Bills

WE have already accorded our general support to the several amendments to the criminal law of India of which notice has been given by Vithalbhai Patel. In the present article, we propose to offer a few detailed observations in regard to some of these proposals. The first proposal relates to a matter in regard to which Indian opinion has been as emphatic as it has been unanimous ever since the first case of sedition against Bal Gangadhar Tilak in the closing years of the 19th century. It has always been regarded in this country as a judicial absurdity, in fact a perfect scandal, that men of the highest and purest character should be sentenced either to transportation or to a term of rigorous imprisonment for an offence against the State involving no violence and no moral turpitude. That men should be punished for merely holding and expressing opinions is bad enough, but even if it is assumed that in the present conditions it is not possible to allow complete freedom to the expression of opinion, common sense, humanity, justice as well as ordinary expediency demand that the punishment inflicted upon a person for expressing unpalatable opinions should not be unnecessarily or disproportionately severe. The requirements of the case are fully met by detaining such persons in custody and thus making it impossible for them to repeat their offence. In England, such men are treated as first-class misdemeanants. That is also, we believe, how they are treated in the colonies and most other civilised countries. In the US, opinion as opinion is wholly free, and no one is ever hauled up for sedition unless he has either used force or suggested the use of force for overthrowing the Constitution.