Six years on, Senior Lawyers who appeared in Sedition case against cartoonist Aseem Trivedi feel the 'law must go'

While hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court recently mooted whether the Sedition law was still needed after 75 years of independence..Six years ago, a public interest litigation (PIL) urged the Bombay High Court to examine the law’s applicability to a cartoonist who had criticised the government. Legal experts associated with the 2015 case (Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr) opine that the colonial law has "no place in a democracy" and that it "must go"..On September 9, 2012, Aseem Trivedi was arrested for his cartoons during the India Against Corruption campaign. The police said that through his cartoons, he "not only defamed the Parliament, the Constitution of India and the Ashok Emblem but also tried to spread hatred and disrespect against the Government.".Subsequently, the Maharashtra government took the opinion of the then Advocate General and dropped the Sedition charges from the cartoonist. But the issue over Sedition being "arbitrarily" invoked against Trivedi was raised in the PIL.It was then argued that invoking the law had infringed upon Trivedi's fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.As a result, the Division Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court was urged to examine the law's validity so that it wasn’t invoked "arbitrarily and irresponsibly" in the future. The points under consideration included the permissible restriction on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order..Six years on, former Advocate General for Maharashtra and Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, who represented the Maharashtra government at that time, feels that Sedition has no place in a democracy..Sedition has no place in a democracyDarius Khambata.“The law against Sedition was a colonial tool used by the British to suppress protest and dissent. It has no place in a democracy since it purports to criminalise disaffection with the government - an essential democratic right,” he says.Khambata underlines that most police stations disregard or are ignorant of the de-fanging of the law by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath’s case (limiting it to only cases of incitement to violence or to commit an offence). “This leads to the registration of utterly frivolous complaints and hardly ever results in conviction. However, the sting lies in the chilling effect such a provision has on so many who elect not to exercise their right of criticism, for fear of running the risk of arrest, albeit wrongful. Democracy is hence the loser,” says Khambata..[BREAKING] Is this law still needed after 75 years of independence? Supreme Court asks AG in challenge to Sedition law under Section 124A IPC.Trivedi’s case had prompted the Maharashtra Home Department to come up with guidelines or pre-requisites before invoking Section 124A IPC against a person. In its judgment, the Bombay High Court had recorded these pre-conditions, which the government decided to circulate among the State's police personnel..Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, who represented Trivedi in the matter, underscores that the State’s guidelines did help to a certain extent in Maharashtra. “Yes, it did make some difference in Maharashtra because of the guidelines. That doesn’t mean people were not charged. But it is reduced, one can definitely say,” he said..Desai, however, argues that laws such as Section 66A of the Information Technology Act that don't exist after being struck down, are still applied to charge people. .“I think giving any discretion to the police will not help and the law has to be struck down,” he stressed..The senior lawyer says that he would have wanted Sedition to be scrapped even when the matter was going on in the Bombay High Court. "I would have liked the Sedition law to have been repealed altogether. But a High Court cannot override a Supreme Court decision, so it was not possible. The only thing possible was to prescribe certain guidelines, which the High Court did. But again, these guidelines were only applicable in Maharashtra. They are not applicable across the country,” he points out..Sedition law was used by British against Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak; now misused with no accountability from govt: Supreme Court .On March 17, 2015, Bombay High Court held in this case, "A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comments, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”According to Desai, the Sedition law has been used in an “extremely loose manner” and its abuse has only risen in the recent past. “That’s how I feel about it, therefore the law must go,” he declares..Six years after the Bombay High Court verdict, the debate over the law's validity has only intensified. It will be interesting to see whether the apex court puts the issue to bed once and for all.