Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in Lok Sabha on Friday that the sedition law will be abolished by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act (now tabled as a Bill), 2023. The move is a part of the Centre's efforts to scrap the colonial legacy in India, including in the legal sphere. Speaking about the Bill Amit Shah said, "Under this, we are repealing laws like sedition. We have set the goal that the conviction ratio has to be taken above 90%. That is why, we have brought an important provision that the sections that provide for seven years or longer jail term, under all those cases forensic team's visit to the crime scene will be made compulsory,"
The Centre on Friday introduced three bills to change "colonial-era" criminal laws. The three bills that will replace Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Act and Indian Evidence Act are Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha and Bharatiya Sakshya, respectively.
According to Union Ministry of Home Affairs data, the nation witnessed the registration of 399 instances of sedition (under Section 124A of the IPC) from 2014 to 2020. Remarkably, convictions materialized in only eight of these cases.
The frequency of sedition cases documented across the country surged by more than 55%, escalating from 47 cases in 2014 to 73 cases in 2020.
Last year, the Supreme Court intervened by suspending all ongoing proceedings related to sedition cases. The apex court directed the Central government to critically review the validity of this law and undertake necessary amendments to curtail its potential misuse. This proactive stance reflects a growing recognition of the necessity to strike a balance between maintaining order and safeguarding the principles of freedom of expression and dissent.
What Is Sedition Law In India?
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of sedition. Under this provision, sedition is defined as any act or attempt to bring hatred or contempt towards the Government of India, excite disaffection, or incite people to commit violence against the State. The law, rooted in the colonial era, was initially intended to curb dissent against British rule.
However, concerns have arisen regarding its misuse to stifle legitimate criticism and peaceful dissent against the government. Critics argue that the broadly worded provision can be interpreted subjectively, leading to curbing of fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression. Instances of its application against activists, journalists, and even students had sparked discussions about the need for its reform or abolition.