Dear reader, India's sedition law is a colonial relic. It was introduced by the British administration to stifle dissent and detain leaders of the freedom struggle. Lokamanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were among the leaders who faced its brunt. Yet, the rulers of independent India refused to remove it from the books. That's not surprising. Which ruler wouldn't mind a good law that can keep dissent in check! In 1962, the constitutionality of the law was challenged in Kedarnath vs the State of Bihar. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which contains the law of sedition. In July last year, the SC started hearing petitions that challenged the Kedarnath order and asked the government to respond. The Centre had not filed its response when the apex court took up the matter again in April this year. The Court granted a deadline of May 5 for the Centre to respond. Interestingly, the Centre shifted its stance and told the Court it intends to review the law. On Wednesday, the Court issued a set of guidelines to prevent misuse of the sedition provisions and asked the Centre and state governments to comply. The development has been welcomed by most parties. The Indian Express editorial ('A pregnant pause', May 12) said, "The Supreme Court's interim order on Wednesday, effectively putting on hold Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that defines and penalises sedition, is a very welcome intervention." Chitranshul Sinha ('A small win', May 13) and D Raja ('Why sedition law must go', May 13) commented on the SC order. Sinha, author of the Great Repression: The story of sedition in India, puts the Court's intervention in context. He also points out the contradictory positions the Centre has taken in the Court. On the Centre's affidavit that states it will reconsider the law, Sinha writes, "It appears that the Court's oral observations in the matter, where it disapproved the misuse of the law, had a bearing on the government's decision." He also writes that the Court order "does not have an effect of absolute stay as it states that if a fresh case is registered the accused would have the liberty to approach appropriate courts and seek relief on the basis of its order". Sinha adds that "the order may have left room open to the state and central governments to continue filing cases as the only consequence of not complying with the request would be that the accused would again be left to the mercy of the court to seek bail or stay of arrest". Sinha's conclusion is: "This order appears to be a small win but leaves a lot to be desired. Also, its implementation at the ground level remains to be seen." Raja, the CPI general secretary, had moved a Private Member's Bill in 2011 asking Parliament to abolish the sedition law. He writes: "Since the BJP led government came to power in 2014, there has been a marked increase in the use of sedition charges. The sword of Section 124A has been hanging over the head of politicians, human rights activists and advocacy groups who dared question the government's stand. Branding dissenters as anti-national and slapping them with sedition or UAPA charges has become a fashion." Raja quotes the National Crime Records Bureau data to point out that "a total of 156 cases of sedition were pending in 2017 and in that year, only 27 cases could be disposed of at the police level by withdrawing the case or submitting a chargesheet." He writes: "In courts, out of the 58 cases on trial, only one conviction could be obtained and the pendency rate for the cases of sedition was close to 90 per cent. The number of cases increased in 2020, the year for which the latest NCRB data is available, but with the same results. Of the total 230 cases registered, only 23 were chargesheeted. Pendency in court reached close to 95 per cent for the sedition cases in 2020. The abysmally low rate of conviction and disposal of these cases make it clear that these charges are slapped with very flimsy or no evidence to intimidate or harass those who question the government's fiat. On the baseless pretext of sedition or anti-national activity, the government is keeping political activists, human rights defenders, civil rights workers in prison ad infinitum to create an atmosphere of fear and servility." The sedition law has no place in a truly democratic state. Its continuance betrays an insecure state fearful of criticism and dissent. The Delhi High Court's split verdict on marital rape was the subject of an editorial and an article (Mary E John, 'A question of consent', May 14). The Express editorial ('Debating the exception', May 13) said "the Delhi High Court's split verdict in the case challenging the validity of the marital rape exemption in law mirrors the deep public divide on an issue that involves not just the letter of the law but complex social mores". Mary E John writes that "marital rape is rape within marriage". She frames the conservative argument, evident in Indian law, that carves out an exception for marital rape within marriage and asks: "Why is it so hard even for contemporary society to accept that the commitment to marriage between two persons presupposes a kind of mutual respect that cannot include forcing oneself on the married partner? Why, instead, do we hear the opposite, for instance, the government of India's argument in 2017 that removing the exception of marital rape would 'destabilise the institution of marriage'? And why, in the words of the learned High Court judge who upheld the exception clause, should it be far worse to be 'ravished by a stranger' than by one's own life partner?" P C Mohanan and Amitabh Kundu ('Number wars', May 11) and Shamika Ravi ('What the numbers hide', May 14) write that the debate over India's Covid deaths will remain inconclusive in the absence of authentic data. The crisis in Sri Lanka had turned for the worse last week when public anger turned against the Rajapaksa family forcing Mahinda Rajapaksa to resign from the prime minister's office. He didn't go quietly as his supporters targeted the civil society protest at the Galle Face in Colombo triggering retaliatory attacks across the island country. While the Express editorial ('Colombo Storm', May 9) comments on the political storm, Nepal's Ambassador to India, Shankar P Sharma, argues why it is a mistake to compare the economies of Nepal and Sri Lanka ('Kathmandu is not Colombo', May 13). Though Nepal faces a foreign reserves crunch, following the impact of the pandemic on tourism and remittances from expatriate workers, Kathmandu is in control of the situation, Sharma writes. A Kashmiri Pandit employed with the state government in Budgam in the Valley was killed while in his office last week. The horrific murder raises questions about the government's claims of normalcy in the Valley. The Express editorial ('Soft target', May 14) writes: "It should also be putting the lid on activities that seem to emphasise the divide between Muslims and Hindus. The environment in the Valley is fraught, and the administration must not add to it, even if it can do nothing to provide a healing touch to those affected by the violence." The bulldozer continues to run amok despite the Supreme Court raising the red flag against its deployment against ordinary citizens. Even as the temperature hit record highs in Delhi, the municipal authorities launched a drive against illegal constructions and encroachment. Commenting on the South Delhi Municipal Corporation's demolition drive at Madanpur Khadar, the Express editorial ('Bulldozed', May 14) writes: "The bulldozer - and its perceived targeted use recently by the MCD - as a symbol of governance is threatening. Its being ranged against lower-middle class, working people is cause for deep unease." According to Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia, if the administration is to raze all unauthorised constructions in Delhi, it will render 70 per cent of the population homeless. As the editorial says, "Demolition is irreversible and so the bar for it has to be high, the burden of proof on those who order the bulldozer." Last week, Apple shelved the iPod 21 years after it was launched. In her lyrical ode to the iconic product that turned listening to music an intensely personal, curated experience, Paromita Chakrabarti ('An introvert's companion', May 12) writes that "its promise of abandon and the connections it established linger on like a half-forgotten lyric you can't get out of your head". Please read the article if you missed it. Till next week, Amrith Amrith Lal is Senior Assistant Editor with the Opinion team | 
No comments:
Post a Comment