For all those people who are “Standing with JNU”, I would like you to know the facts about this incident.
First of all what is sedition. According to the definition of google, “in law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.”
According to Black Law dictionary, sedition is “An insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but wanting an overt act; attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquillity of the state.
In English law, “Sedition is the offense of publishing, verbally or otherwise, any words or document with the intention of exciting disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the sovereign, or the government and constitution of the kingdom, or either house of parliament, or the administration of justice or of exciting his majesty’s subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state, or of exciting feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of his majesty’s subjects.”
According to Indian Penal Code section 124A “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, 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.
This section requires two essentials:-
1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written, or (ii) by signs, (iii) by visible representation.
According to the explanation 1 in this section, the expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
In the case of Ram Nandan v. State of .U.P.(AIR 1959 All 101), The Hon’ble High Court held that section 124 a of I.P.C. imposes restriction on freedom of speech and hence declared it as ultra vires. This decision of the Hon’ble High Court was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Das v. State of Bihar(AIR 1962 SC 955). In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that “Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which makes sedition an offence is constitutionally valid. Though the section imposes restrictions on the fundamental freedom of speech and expression, the restrictions are in the interest of public order and are within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with the fundamental right.”
In the case of Tara Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1962 SC 955), again section 124 a of I.P.C. was struck down as unconstitutional being contrary to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
To avert the difficulty and confusion due to the case of Tara Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1962 SC 955), the constitutional 1st (Amendment) Act, 1951 was added in article 19(2) which says “Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The court had further observed in the said case that the right guaranteed under Art 19(1) (a) is subject to such reasonable restriction as would come within the purview of clause (2), to Art 19 which comprises (a) security of the State, (b) friendly relations with foreign states, (c) public order, (d) decency or morality, etc.
All those things which are mentioned above clearly states that that the slogans which were spoken in JNU (which were “Pakistan Zindabad”, “Bharat ki barbadi tak, Afzal ki aazadi tak, jung rahegi”, “bharat ke tukde karenge” and other such slogans) were anti national and this amounts to sedition.
Many people are saying that the video submitted by the Delhi Police is “doctored” but no, the video is not doctored (as told by the Delhi Police).
Many people give this contention as well that people who raised slogans came from Kashmir and the people who were there did not participated in that event. I don’t think that this contention is a right one. If those people wanted they could have walked out of the place seeing the poster bearing the words “Cultural evening against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat”. But no, they did not. Because they were a part of this event.
People say that they were practising their freedom of speech and expression. As I have cleared above, there is a reasonable restriction imposed on this freedom and no one has a right to raise slogans against the unity and integrity of the country.
This event also amounts to “contempt of court” as the poster clearly mentioned “Against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat”. What do they mean by judicial killing? And what do they think that “Afzal Guru” and “Maqbool Bhat” did? A heroic act? This statement clearly questions the judgement of the Hon’ble Court in the case.
All those people who still don’t agree with me.....for their information, I would like to tell them that Umar Khalid has been identified by IB as a member of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Kanhaiya Kumar has been identified as one of the slogan raisers by the JNU’s investigation committee itself.
This incident openly shouts that people are working against the unity of our country and this is an alarm for all of us to think sensibly and not mobilise by the emotions but act as a wise and alert citizen.
Aparna Tripathi
Ist year B.A.LL.B. Student
Amity Law School,Delhi
