Sedition Law Repealed?

What happened?

On August 11, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three new bills in Lok Sabha. These bills propose to replace the criminal laws, including the harsh sedition laws that originated during the British colonial era and were still used in India.

Why does it matter?

More than 160 years ago, Thomas Babington Macaulay laid down the Indian Penal Code. It has since been guiding Indian criminal law. It outlines what behaviours are considered crimes and the associated punishments. The new bills introduced in the parliament will reform the country’s judicial system significantly, especially its dealing with offences of terrorism, crimes against women, and acts that are against the State. However, they have also sparked a debate on the BJP-led government’s intentions to bring these reforms.

What are the arguments from both sides?

Side 1: They should be implemented: 

Colonial legacy: While introducing the bills in the Lok Sabha, Amit Shah argued that the existing criminal laws were laid down by the British to favour their colonial interests. They sought to protect the British and not the people of India. The new bills will help India shed the ‘colonial hangover’.

People-centric: The bills seek to reform the existing laws that were designed to instil fear in people’s minds towards the State. The reforms will focus more on providing justice to the people rather than punishing them. Punishment will be used to create a sentiment that prevents people from committing crimes.

Modern times: The outdated laws aren’t fit for practice in modern times. The nature of crime, the psychology of criminals and technology have changed drastically. Therefore, the existing laws need to be reformed to accommodate the changes and make criminal justice at par with the present.

Side 2: They should NOT be implemented:

Sedition 2.0: Experts argue that the new bills seek to strengthen the Sedition law rather than repeal it by creating vague provisions. The new bills replace the word ‘sedition’ with ‘subversive activities’ but offer no definition of what this actually means. Such vague provisions will increase the risk of unreasonable arrests.

Greater power to police: The proposed bills also offer more power to the police. Under the existing law, police could hold an arrested person in custody for a maximum of 15 days. But that has been extended to 60-90 days. Under such a provision, the new laws fail to be ‘people-centric’.

Existing problems: Larger parts of the bills simply reproduce existing provisions of the laws. This means they don’t solve the existing problem in the criminal justice system. For instance, there are no new provisions for solving the large numbers of undertrials (i.e. people who’re being held in custody and awaiting a trial). Another huge problem is police torture and the submission of torture-based confessions by using loopholes in the laws. If the Centre wants to introduce ‘people-centric’ laws, it must first create provisions to address these problems.

What’s next?

The bills are currently referred to the concerned committee in the parliament. With the committee’s approval, they will be brought into the Lok Sabha for debate and discussion during the next session of the parliament.