Background Guide

All India Political Parties Meet

(AIPPM)
 INDEX

• Letter from the Executive Board 03

• Committee Overview 04

• Agenda 04

• Introduction 05

• Why protect Freedom of Speech & Expression ? 05

• New dimensions of Freedom of Speech & Expression 07

• Grounds of Restriction 08

• What is Sedition ? 10

• History of Sedition Laws in India 11

• Sedition Laws: Post Independence 14

• Prevalent Provisions related to Sedition 15

• Recent Cases related to Sedition in India 20

• Conclusion & Way Forward 21

• Suggested Readings 22

• List of Valid Sources 22

 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Greetings Delegates!

It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you all to this simulation of All India Political
Parties Meet (AIPPM) at “Mukat MUN 2022”. We look forward to an enriching and
rewarding experience.

The agenda for the session is “Discussion on right to freedom of speech and expression
in India with special emphasis on Sedition laws like UAPA, NSA etc.”.

This study guide is by no means the end of the research, we would very much appreciate it
if the Members are able to find new realms in the agenda and bring it forth to the committee.
Such research combined with good argumentation and a solid representation of facts is
what makes an excellent performance. In the session, the executive board will encourage
you to speak as much as possible, as fluency, diction, or oratory skills have very little
importance as opposed to the content you deliver. So just research and speak and you are
bound to make a lot of sense.

The Executive Board looks forward to an efficient & progressive committee as the issue is
very sensitive. We therefore, expect you all to play your roles with responsibility. Hopefully
we, as members of the Executive Board, do also have a chance to gain from this committee.

We regret any error that may have inadvertently crept into this guide and would appreciate
it if you could bring it to our notice. Please do not hesitate to contact us regarding any doubts
that you may have.

All the best!

Regards,

Vaibhav Tyagi Prerna

Moderator Deputy Moderator
[email protected] [email protected]
I. COMMITTEE OVERVIEW
With more than 2000 registered political parties in India. The politics of the nation has been
constantly changing. Typically called before the session of the parliament or introduction of the
bill the All India Political Party Meets are conventions that allow the diverse political groups of
India to reach a consensus on decisions of national importance, before sessions began.

With the absence of legislative power of the parliament the initial purpose of the forum was for
unrestricted political debate, discussion and deliberation which may not be allowed in parliament
due to time constraints but this body now aids in providing a better insight into national issues.

The AIPPM committee in MUN aims to mimic this reality by reproducing the stages of policies
and jurisdiction, with delegates representing personalities from the divergent group of Indian
political parties. While stepping into the shoes of assigned politician the AIPPM committee
expects its representatives to be well versed, with their political party’s ideology, manifesto and
beliefs which helps the representatives grasp the multi-layered processes that go behind policy-
making and governance in India, providing them with an explicit experience to the hitches and
hurdles that political parties accost in modern times.

The AIPPM committee unlike other conventional MUN committee characterized by heated
debates, cross talks, high levels of negotiations and political democracy echoes hopes of change
and evolution!

Note - Representatives are especially requested to be well versed with basic principles of the
constitution, domestic law, their party ideology and display character role-play befitting that of
the allocated portfolio.

II. AGENDA

“DISCUSSION ON RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND

EXPRESSION IN INDIA WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON
SEDITION LAWS LIKE UAPA,NSA ETC.”.
III. INTRODUCTION
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person was of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing mankind.

- John Stuart Mill

The freedom of speech is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a preferred and
important position in the hierarchy of liberty, it is truly said about the freedom of speech that it is
the mother of all other liberties. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express
one's own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any
other mode. In modern time it is widely accepted that the right to freedom of speech is the essence
of free society and it must be safeguarded at all time.

The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum. Liberty
to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment plays
significant role in the development of that particular society and ultimately for that state.

It is one of the most important fundamental liberties guaranteed against state suppression or
regulation. Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the constitution or statutes of various
states but also by various international conventions like Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
European convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights etc. These declarations expressly talk about protection of freedom of
speech and expression. It is one of the fundamental rights of the Constitution of India.

IV. WHY PROTECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION ?

Speech is a medium of one’s expression. It’s a way for a human being to express his or her
thoughts. It is what segregates social animals from others and forms the basic foundation of
human society. There are many contradictions and similarities between human rights and
constitutional rights, but the right to freedom of expression concentrates on both areas being an
important element of social and political life. Nevertheless, the proper implementation and extent
of these rights are questioned.
Freedom of speech offers human being to express his feelings to other, but this is not the only
reason; purpose to protect the freedom of speech. There could be more reasons to protect these
essential liberties.

There are four important justifications for freedom of speech:-

1. For the Discovery of Truth by Open Discussion

According to it, if restrictions on speech are tolerated, society prevents the ascertainment and
publication of accurate facts and valuable opinion. That is to say, it assists in the discovery of
truth.

2. Free Speech as an aspect of Self-fulfilment and Development

Freedom of speech is an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and self-
fulfillment. Restriction on what we are allowed to say and write or to hear and read will hamper
our personality and its growth. It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment.

3. For Expressing Belief and Political Attitudes:

Freedom of speech provides an opportunity to express one’s belief and show political attitudes.
It ultimately results in the welfare of the society and state. Thus, freedom of speech provides a
mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and
social change.

4. For Active Participation in democracy

Democracy is the most important feature of today’s world. Freedom of speech is there to protect
the right of all citizens to understand political issues so that they can participate in the smooth
working of democracy. That is to say, freedom of speech strengthens the capacity of an individual
in participating in decision-making.

Thus, we find that protection of freedom of speech is very much essential. Protection of freedom
of speech is important for the discovery of truth by open discussion, for self- fulfillment and
development, for expressing belief and political attitudes, and for active participation in
democracy.
The present study is intended to present the provisions of the American and Indian Constitution
which recognize the freedom of speech and expression, the basic fundamental rights of human
beings. It is also to be examined what is the judicial trend in interpreting the freedom of speech
and expression provisions. The study also covers the comparison between the approaches of both
countries as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

V. NEW DIMENSIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION

● Government has No Monopoly on Electronic Media: The Supreme Court widened the scope
and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression and held that the government has no
monopoly on electronic media and a citizen has under Art. 19(1)(a) a right to telecast and
broadcast to the viewers/listeners through electronic media television and radio any important
event.

The government can impose restrictions on such a right only on grounds specified in clause (2)
of Art. 19 and not on any other ground. A citizen has fundamental right to use the best means of
imparting and receiving communication and as such have an access to telecasting for the purpose.

● Commercial Advertisements: The court held that commercial speech (advertisement) is a

part of the freedom of speech and expression. The court however made it clear that the
government could regulate the commercial advertisements, which are deceptive, unfair,
misleading and untruthful. Examined from another angle the Court said that the public at large
has a right to receive the "Commercial Speech".

Art. 19(1) (a) of the constitution not only guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, it also
protects the right of an individual to listen, read, and receive the said speech.

● Telephone Tapping: Invasion on Right to Privacy: Telephone tapping violates Art. 19(1) (a)
unless it comes within grounds of restriction under Art. 19(2). Under the guidelines laid down by
the Court, the Home Secretary of the centre and state governments can only issue an order for
telephone tapping.

The order is subject to review by a higher power review committee and the period for telephone
tapping cannot exceed two months unless approved by the review authority.
VI. GROUNDS OF RESTRICTION
Clause (2) of Article 19 contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression can be imposed:

1) Security of the State : Under Article 19 (2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom
of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term "security of state" refers
only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g., rebellion, waging war against the State,
insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g., unlawful assembly,
riot, affray. Thus, speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or encourage
the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would undermine the
security of the State.

2) Friendly Relations with Foreign States : This ground was added by the constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious
propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardize the maintenance of good
relations between India, and that state. No similar provision is present in any other Constitution
of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by
Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest in friendly relations with foreign States, would
not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. It is to be noted
that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for the purposes of
this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted on the
ground that the matter is averse to Pakistan.

3) Public Order : This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public
order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails
among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the
Government which they have established."

Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is
synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for determining whether an act
affects law and order or public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the
current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether
it affects merely an individual being the tranquility of the society undisturbed.

Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus, communal
disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of causing unrest among workmen are
offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state
of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also
includes public safety. Thus, creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and
public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its
external aspect 'public safety' means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under
public order the State would be entitled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with India.

The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly
intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus. a law
punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class
of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of
public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in
some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be a
reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of
public order.

4) Decency or Morality : The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections
292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech
and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or
distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till
now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from
place to place.

5) Contempt of Court : Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if
it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to Section
2, 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt .'
6) Defamation : A statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation.
Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating
to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.

7) Incitement to an Offence : This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to
commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for
the time being in force.

8) Sedition : As understood by English law, sedition embraces all those practices whether by
words, or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant
person to subvert the government. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in clause
(2) of Art. 19 as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and expression
may be imposed.

VII. WHAT IS SEDITION ?

The term sedition is not a new term for India, it has been in the midst of political discussion since
the days of freedom struggle. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces all those
practices, whether by word, deed, or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the
State, and lead ignorant persons to endeavor to subvert the government and the laws of the
country.

Sedition enshrined under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a colonial law that was
introduced by the British Raj to suppress those that voiced their opinions against it. The Privy
Council and Federal Court have laid down different interpretations to Sedition and Supreme Court
has agreed with the Federal Court version so as to limit the applicability of the law whilst
maintaining its constitutionality.

“Section 124 A under which I am happily charged with, is perhaps the prince among the political
sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”, this is what Mahatma Gandhi
said before pleading guilty of Sedition in a British-India Court.
The Father of the Nation as well as his political advisor Bal Gangadhar Tilak have been arrested
and imprisoned under this law. The offence under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
has been captioned as sedition which is very closely related to treason i.e., offence against the
state.

The Sedition Law gains limelight at every instance when a citizen is convicted under it, a large
number of debates take place upon the constitutional validity of the Sedition Law and eventually
die out due to a lack of response from the Government.

In the international community, Law of Sedition has either been repealed or its applicability
reduced substantially. In India, Government after Government, starting from Jawaharlal Nehru’s
have cited the restrictive and redundant nature of the Sedition Law but have failed to repeal it.
This kind of hypocrisy is what has kept the law of Sedition alive as a botch on our Fundamental
Right of Speech and Expression.

The framers of the Indian constitution were adamant on one thing that India would be democracy.
The aim of this AIPPM committee would be to have a discussion as to whether the law of sedition
as established by the imperial government on the people of India should remain the same for
today’s democratic India or not.

We shall also discuss how the judiciary has played a role in determining the law, rendering justice
and preventing the arbitrary use of this law for political reasons.

VIII. HISTORY OF SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA

The section corresponding to section 124A, the law that defines sedition in the IPC, was originally
section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39, but the section was omitted from the
IPC as it was enacted in 1860. James Fitzjames Stephens, the architect of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, has been quoted as saying that this omission was the result of a mistake.

Another explanation for this omission is that the British government wished to adopt more wide
ranging strategies against the press including a deposit-forfeiture system and general powers of
preventive action.
Section 124A was introduced by the British colonial government in 1870 when it felt the need
for a specific section to deal with the offence. It was one of the many draconian laws enacted to
stifle any voices of dissent at that time.

The immediate necessity of amending the law, in order to allow the government to deal more
efficiently with seditious activities was first recognized by the British in light of increased Wahabi
activities in the period leading up to 1870. With increasing incidents of mutinous activities against
the British, the need to make sedition a substantive offence was widely acknowledged, and the
insertion of a section pertaining specifically to seditious rebellion was considered exigent.

It was the recognition of this rising wave of nationalism at the turn of the 20 th century which led
to the bill containing the law of sedition finally being passed. The offence of sedition was
incorporated under 124A of the IPC on November 25, 1870, and continued without modification
till February 18, 1898. The amended legislation of 1870 was roughly structured around the law
prevailing in England in so far as it drew heavily from the Treason Felony Act, the common law
with regard to seditious libels and the law relating to seditious words.

The Treason Felony Act, extensively regarded as one of the defining Acts of the English law
pertaining to treason, imposed liability on all those who harbored feelings of disloyalty towards
the Queen. Any thought connoting unfaithfulness or treachery towards the Crown, coupled with
the presence of an overt act, i.e., an act from which an apparent criminal intention could be
inferred, was subject to punishment within the ambit of this legislation.

After the initiation of the law of sedition in 1870, it was allowed to remain in force, unaltered, for
a period of 27 years. Throughout this period, one of the primary objectives of the British
Government was to strengthen this law. Therefore, it ultimately approved the enactment of two
cognate laws: the Dramatic Performances Act XIX of 1876 (‘DPA’) and the Vernacular Press
Act (IX) of 1878.

These Acts came to be popularly referred to as ‘preventive measures. While the former law was
primarily introduced to keep a check on seditious activities in plays, the latter was formulated to
actively suppress criticism against British policies and decisions in the wake of the Deccan
Agricultural riots of 1875-76.
Since it came into operation in 1870, the law of sedition has continued to be used to stifle voices
of protest, dissent or criticism of the government. While the indeterminate invoking of the
provision has put it in the media spotlight, there has been very little academic discussion with
respect to the nature of the law and its possible repeal.

Some Victims of Sedition Laws in Pre-Independent India:

● Jogendra Chundra Bose (Queen Empress vs Jogesh Chundra Bose)

The initial cases that invoked the sedition law included numerous prosecutions against the editors
of nationalist newspapers. The first among them was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891.
Bose, the editor of the newspaper, Bangobasi, wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Bill
for posing a threat to religion and for its coercive relationship with Indians. His article also
commented on the negative economic impact of British colonialism.

Bose was prosecuted and accused of exceeding the limits of legitimate criticism, and inciting
religious feelings. The judge rejected the defence’s plea that there was no mention of rebellion in
his article. However, the proceedings against Bose were dropped after he tended an apology.

● Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak)

Ironically some of the most famous sedition trials of the late 19th and early 20 th century involved
Indian nationalist leaders. Of these, the most well-known are the three sedition trials of Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, which were closely followed by his admirers nationally and internationally.
The fundamental moral question that Tilak raised was whether his trials constituted sedition of
the people against the British Indian government (Rajdroha) or of the Government against the
Indian people (Deshdroha). Tilak’s first trial began in 1897.

The government claimed that some of his speeches that referred to Shivaji killing Afzal Khan had
instigated the murder of the much reviled Plague Commissioner Rand and Lieutenant Ayherst,
another British officer, the following week. Tilak was convicted of the charge of sedition, but
released in 1898 after the intervention of internationally known figures like Max Weber on the
condition that he would do nothing by act, speech, or writing to excite disaffection towards the
government.
● Annie Besant

Another famous decision was Annie Besant v. Advocate General of Madras. The case dealt with
Section 4(1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910, that was framed similar to Section 124A. The relevant
provision said that any press used for printing/publishing newspapers, books or other documents
containing words, signs or other visible representations that had a tendency to provoke hatred or
contempt to His Majesty’s government...or any class of subjects (either directly or indirectly, by
way of inference, suggestion, metaphor, etc.) would be liable to have its deposit forfeited. In this
case an attack was leveled against the English bureaucracy. The Privy Council followed the
earlier interpretation of Justice Strachey and confiscated the deposit of Annie Besant’s printing
press.

● Mahatma Gandhi

On March 1922, Gandhi was tried before Mr. Broomfield, I.C.S., District & Sessions Judge of
Ahmedabad, for sedition w.r.t. two articles, which he had written in his paper "Young India".
These charges were of bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s
Government established by law in British India, and thereby committing offences punishable
under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code.

IX. SEDITION LAWS : POST INDEPENDENCE

After India attained independence in 1947, the offence of sedition continued to remain in
operation under 124A of the IPC. Even though sedition was expressly excluded by the Constituent
Assembly as a ground for the limitation of the right to freedom of speech and expression, this
right was still being curbed under the guise of this provision of the IPC. On three significant
occasions, the constitutionality of this provision was challenged in the courts. These cases shaped
the subsequent discourse in the law of sedition.

Following the decision in Niharendu Majumdar, 124A was struck down as unconstitutional in
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Ram Nandan v. State, and Tara Singh v. State (‘Tara
Singh’). In Tara Singh, the East Punjab High Court relied on the principle that a restriction on a
fundamental right shall fail in if the language restricting such a right is wide enough to cover
instances falling both within and outside the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative
action affecting such a right.

During the debates surrounding the first amendment to the Constitution, the then Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru was subjected to severe criticism by members of the opposition for the rampant
curbs that were being placed on the freedom of speech and expression under his regime. This
criticism, accompanied by the rulings of the courts in the aforementioned judgments holding
section 124A to be unconstitutional, compelled Nehru to suggest an amendment to the
Constitution.

Thus, through the first amendment to the Constitution, the additional grounds of ‘public order’
and ‘relations with friendly states’ were added to the Article 19(2) list of permissible restrictions
on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Further, the word
‘reasonable’ was added before ‘restrictions’ to limit the possibility of misuse by the government.
In the parliamentary debates, Nehru stated that the intent behind the amendment was not the
validation of laws like sedition. He described section 124A as ‘objectionable and obnoxious’ and
opined that it did not deserve a place in the scheme of the IPC.

X. PREVALENT PROVISIONS RELATED TO SEDITION

● Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 124-A defines the offence of sedition. Section 124 A reads as follows –

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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1-The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a

view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section.

So, the offence of sedition under Section 124-A is the doing of certain acts which would bring
hatred or contempt, or create disaffection against the Government established by law in India.
Such acts can be committed by means of words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by any
kind of visible representation. The framework of this section was imported from various sources
like (1) Treason Felony Act (operating in Britain), (2) the common law of seditious libel and (3)
the English law identifying to seditious words. The common law of seditious libel governed both
actions and word that related to citizens and the government, and also between communities of
persons.

It is however not clear from the provisions of the Section whether exciting or attempting to excite
feelings of disaffection, hatred or contempt is punishable per se or whether exciting or attempting
to excite people to tumult and disorder is necessary ingredient of the offence. Except the Section
124- A, there are other sections also which deals with the offences relating to sedition. Section
153A deals with sedition by causing class hatred. Sedition by promoting religious insult is
punishable under Section 295A.

● Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

The Criminal Procedure Code contains Section 95 which gives the government the right to forfeit
material punishable under Section 124A on stating grounds. The section requires two conditions
to be fulfilled:

1. That the material is punishable under the sections

2. The government gives grounds for its opinion to forfeit the material.

Chapter X of Criminal Procedure Code deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility
and permits Police, Magistrate, Armed Forces to cause an unlawful public assemble to disperse,
if necessary, by use of force and to restore public order. Acts which could be deemed to be
seditious can be prevented by these pre-emptive actions.
● Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911

The Seditious Meetings Act, which was enacted by the British to control dissent by criminalizing
seditious meetings, unfortunately continues to be on our statute books. Section 5 of the Act
empowers a District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to prohibit a public meeting in a
proclaimed area if, in his opinion, such meeting is likely to promote sedition or disaffection
towards the government or to cause a disturbance of the public tranquility. This legislation was
specifically enacted to curb meetings being held by nationalists and those opposed to the British
Government, the continuation of this legislation is completely unnecessary and undemocratic.

● Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

According to Section 2 of the said Act, supporting claims of secession, questioning territorial
integrity and causing or intending to cause disaffection against India fall within the ambit of
unlawful activity. Section 135 punishes unlawful activity with imprisonment extending to seven
years and a fine.

Major Amendments of UAPA

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2012
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2019
Why was UAPA enacted ?

Following the laws of the United Nations, the United States, Israel, China, Pakistan, and the
European Union, the Indian Parliament has amended the UAPA to allow the government to
designate "individuals" as terrorists under Article 35 of the Act. Terrorism, preparation for acts
of terrorism, promotion of terrorism or if not, it is related to terrorism. Prior to, the government
had the authority to designate organizations as terrorists rather than individuals. It is the individual
who commits the act of terrorism, not the organization.

The new provision also empowers the Secretary of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to
allow foreclosure or foreclosure of property when the case is being investigated by the authorities.
Previously, property was confiscated only after the investigator had permission from the police
secretary. Therefore, the central government receives the authority to confiscate directly from the
state government. Is it said that such a thing leads to the centralization of power? The UAPA,
amended under Section 43, empowers NIA officers to be more than an inspector to investigate
the case. Historically, investigative power rested solely on the ranks of assistant superintendents
or assistant superintendents.

● Insult to Indian National Flag and Constitution of India, 1971

Section 2 of the said Act states as whoever in any public place or in any other place within public
view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows
disrespect to or brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the
Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

● National Security Act, 1980

The NSA was activated by the Parliament of India in 1980. The law provides preventive detention
in certain cases and in related matters. The law focuses on maintaining national law and order,
and provides for the imprisonment of anyone who attempts to interfere with state or national law
and order. The law contains 18 sections that empower state and central governments to arrest
anyone for the following reasons:

• India's defines, relations with India's foreign forces, or acts that are detrimental to India's
security.

• For the purpose of managing the continued presence of a foreigner in India or arranging his
expulsion from India.

• Avoid taking harmful actions in the following ways:

• National security;

• Maintaining public order and morals.

• Maintain essential supplies and services to the community as needed.

The timeline of the Act

India has had preventive detention legal guidelines relationship lower back to the begin of the
colonial era. In the 12 months 1818, Bengal Regulation III changed into handed which
empowered the then authorities to arrest each person in topics referring to defence or upkeep of
public order without giving the individual choice of judicial proceedings. Again, after one
hundred years, the British authorities handed the Rowlett Acts of 1919 that supplied for the
confinement of a suspect without trial.

After India were given independence, the primary Act that supplied for preventive detention rule
changed into enacted withinside the 12 months 1950 for the duration of Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru`s authorities. The Act changed into referred to as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The
NSA is enacted on comparable traces with the 1950 Act.

After the expiration of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 on December 31, 1969, Indira Gandhi,
the then Prime Minister, introduced withinside the contentious MISA, 1971 (Maintenance of
Internal Security Act), giving comparable powers to the authorities. Though the MISA changed
into abrogated through the Janata Party authorities in 1977, the successive authorities, headed
through Indira Gandhi, introduced withinside the NSA, 1980.

How detention under NSA is different from normal detention?

Normal Detention Detention under NSA

If a person is successfully detained, he or she Under the NSA, a person can be detained for
has the right to be informed of the reason for 10 days without being informed of the charges
his detention. against him.
A person has a right to bail. A person detained under the NSA does not
have Bail right.
A person detained generally has the proper A person detained under the NSA cannot take
to seek advice from a lawyer. the help of the lawyers.
XI. RECENT CASES RELATED TO SEDITION IN INDIA
● Manoj Shinde, Journalist, August 2006:

As editor of the Surat Saamna, the Gujarat police alleged he used “abusive words” for
Chief Minister Narendra Modi while criticising him for his handling of the Surat floods.

● Binayak Sen, Doctor, May 2007:

A staunch critic of Chhattisgarh’s vigilante army, the Salwa Judum, Sen was convicted for
life in 2010 for helping the Maoists. An international uproar resulted in an abrupt order
from the Supreme Court granting him bail.

● Bharat Desai, Editor, June 2008:

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s government filed a case of sedition against the
editor of the Times of India because it had published articles in the newspaper which
questioned the appointment of the city police chief and alleged, he was linked to an
erstwhile underworld don.

● Arundhati Roy, Writer, November 2010:

A private complaint was filed against Roy for delivering a speech that the complainant
alleged was anti-India.

● Aseem Trivedi, Cartoonist, January 2012:

Sedition charges were slapped against him for allegedly insulting national symbols using
his cartoons.

● Kudankulam Protests, March 2012:

11 Kudankulam protesters were charged with sedition for leading a protest against a
nuclear power plant which they felt would pose an environmental threat.
XI. CONCLUSION & WAY FORWARD
A colonial legacy like sedition law, which presumes popular affection for the state as a natural
condition and expects citizens not to show any enmity, contempt, hatred or hostility towards the
government established by law, does not have a place in a modern democratic state like India.

The case for repealing the law of sedition in India is rooted in its impact on the ability of citizens
to freely express themselves as well as to constructively criticize or express dissent against their
government.

The existence of sedition laws in India’s statute books and the resulting criminalization of
‘disaffection’ towards the state is unacceptable in a democratic society. These laws are clearly
colonial remnants with their origin in extremely repressive measures used by the colonial
government against nationalists fighting for Indian independence.

The use of these laws to harass and intimidate media personnel, human rights activists, political
activists, artists, and public intellectuals despite a Supreme Court ruling narrowing its application,
shows that the very existence of sedition laws on the statute books is a threat to democratic values.

The government should make a thin line between freedom of speech and expression and
reasonable restrictions and The Right of citizens to protest and gather peacefully without arms is
a fundamental aspect of India’s democracy.

While it is also the obligation of the government to protect civilians from violent protests, certain
essential principles need to be kept in mind. The Right to protest is one of the core principles on
which democracy survives and thrives. However, when a protest turns violent, as seen in some
places in recent protests, it defeats the very purpose of the protest.

While enjoying the rights, one must adhere to one’s duties and responsibilities in a democratic
society. Protection to citizens against surveillance and a Balance must be maintained to protect
privacy and to promote national interest. Attempts should be made to bring appropriate changes
to this aspect of Indian laws in tune with most modern democratic frameworks including the
United Kingdom, USA, and New Zealand.
The delegates are requested to understand the practical approach of Article 19 (1)(a). We would
be looking forward to healthy discussions pertaining to prevalent issues and historical outcomes.
To understand the scope of the article and finding out important changes required in the Article
(if any), checking its feasibility and approach is of primary concern.

“Laws are meant to protect and not to be protected”, any violation of any law is a danger to the
democracy and thus, it becomes necessary to ensure that we abide by those laws.

XII. LIST OF VALID SOURCES

1. Government Reports (Each ministry publishes its own reports including External Affairs
Ministry)
2. PTI, PIB
3. Government Websites
4. Government run News channels i.e., RSTV, LSTV, DD News
5. Standing Committee Reports/ Commission Reports
6. RTI Proofs
7. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports
8. Questions and Answers of the parliament

XIII. SUGGESTED READINGS

http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210355.pdf
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1967-37.pdf
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/filesISdivII_NSAAct1980_20122018.pdf
https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf
https://www.iitk.ac.in/wc/data/IPC_186045.pdf
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
https://www.juscorpus.com/right-to-freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-speech-expression/
https://indianlawportal.co.in/sedition-and-the-oppression-on-freedom-of-speech/
https://thewire.in/law/interview-sedition-and-the-right-to-freedom-of-expression