Sedition and its discontents.

Byline: Reema Omer

WHEN charged with sedition by the British colonial government in 1922 for his articles published in a local magazine, Gandhi famously said: 'Section 124A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of a citizen. ... Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by the law. If one has no affection for a particular person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence.'

Section 124A relates to the offence of sedition or exciting 'disaffection' against the government. It was first included in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870 - 10 years after it was first enacted - ostensibly in response to the Wahabi movement in the 1860s. The provision covers almost any form of expression: words, 'either spoken or written', signs, as well as 'visible representation'.

In 1898, the provision was made even more stringent and was amended to include 'contempt', 'hatred', and 'disloyalty' within the ambit of 'disaffection', as the colonial authorities were finding it difficult to secure convictions on the basis of proving 'disaffection' alone.

The offence was non-bailable, carried a sentence of up to life imprisonment, and was used against a number of prominent anti-colonial and nationalist figures in India in response to their written and verbal speech.

Elements of the offence are vague and over-broad, and open to subjective interpretations.

Ironically, this colonial relic, which has at its foundation the belief that people are obligated to feel 'affection' towards the government or else be punished, continues to thrive in a number of post-colonial states, including Pakistan.

The sedition law itself impedes on multiple human rights such as freedom of expression, the freedoms of association and assembly, and the right to a fair trial: international law is crystal clear criticism of the government and its institutions, even harsh criticism, is a protected form of expression.

Unsurprisingly, the vagueness in its text has also allowed sedition to be misused against political activists, human rights defenders and other individuals exercising or demanding their constitutional rights.

A key precondition to a fair trial recognised universally is that criminal offences must be prescribed by law and must conform to the principle of legality. This means...