Discussion on Advocate Chitranshul Sinha’s book ‘The Great Repression: The story of Sedition in India’

Centre for Policy Research and publishing house, Penguin yesterday held a discussion on Advocate Chitranshul Sinha’s book The Great Repression: The story of Sedition in India..The event which was held at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi witnessed Sinha discuss the law of sedition with panellists, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Executive Editor at Scroll, Supriya Sharma and former JNUSU Vice President, Shehla Rashid..Shedding some light on his book, Sinha revealed that it was the history and evolution of law of sedition that pushed him towards writing a book on it. Sinha spoke at length of the contemporary form of the offence of sedition in India and informed that NCRB started reporting data on cases under sedition only from 2014. He added that as per the NCRB data, between 2014 – 2017, there was only 1 conviction and 6 trials..Remarking that even this data was dubious, Sinha questioned the purpose of the law when there was no conviction..Further speaking on the lack of awareness amongst police personnel with respect to the requirement of sanction from the State Government, Sinha referred to the JNU sedition case which is presently pending due to the absence of sanction from Delhi Government..In the event sedition continues as an offence under the IPC, Sinha called for the introduction of safeguards and safety valves into the sedition law by the Supreme Court..Sinha also pointed out that of late, it was not the State which was filing cases against individuals for sedition but other individuals whose sentiments were being hurt..Senior Advocate Rebecca John took the opportunity to speak at length on the law of sedition and its relevance in the country..“It made sense when the British were here. It makes little sense now when the power lies with “We the Power”.. The presence of sedition in independent India is a bit of a contradiction.”.John informed that as per the Supreme Court unless action resulted in violence or had the propensity to induce violence, sedition should not be invoked..Referring to the sedition FIR against Shehla Rashid for her tweets on the situation in Kashmir post abrogation of Art 370, John remarked,.“You can challenge her but you cannot invoke sedition against her.. She was certainly not being seditious..”.She further said,.“On one hand you project that you are this “muscular State”, on the other hand, you are threatening individuals.. what is the sense in invoking sedition on a daily basis against individuals who do not threaten you..”.John also spoke on the adverse impact of sedition law on free speech and expression..Supriya Sharma brought to notice instances of misuse of law of sedition against individuals for raising legitimate grievances..“..Nearly a hundred years later, people are still being hauled up by Police. Large sections of our society are still experiencing State as an oppressive force..”, she said..Sharma spoke at length on the Pathalgadi movement in Jharkhand and the use of sedition law against hundreds of tribals..Shehla Rashid termed sedition as a “thought crime” and exclaimed that it is meant to stifle the possibility of individual thinking and thinking outside the status quo. Sedition law was being used against who you are, whether you are anti-establishment or you are a minority, Rashid said..The discussion ended with a brief question-answer session with the audience.