In 1870, section 124A was included in the Indian Penal Code, which deals with “Sedition”, and was drafted by Thomas Nanington Macaulay.
What do Section 124A states
Section 124A of the IPC, which deals with anti-government crime, state “Whoever words, either spoken or written, or by sighs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, bring a tries to bring into hatred or hatred, or excites or tries to excite unhappiness towards the Government established by law in India will be punished with state of being locked in a prison for life, to which fine may be added, or which state of being locked in a prison which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
Punishment under Section 124A
Anti-government crime is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under the law differs from the state of being locked in prison up to three years to a life term and fine. A person charged under this law cannot apply for a government job. They have to live without their passport and must themselves in the court as and when needed.
Will 124A be thrown out?
Mahatma Gandhi called 124A “the prince among the political section of IPC designed to hold back the freedom of the person who lawfully lives in a country, state, etc.
Jawaharlal Nehru said that the provision was rude, insulting, and offensive and highly disgusting, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.
However, in July 2019 Nityanand Rai, minister of the state for home affairs, told the Rajya Sabha that there is no person to throw the rule under the IPC dealing with the offence of anti-government crime. There is a need to keep the part of the law or agreement to effectively combat anti-national, someone who thinks that part of a country should break off and become independent and terrorist elements.
In July 2019, Minister of State for home affairs, Nityanand Rai, in a written reply to Rajya Sabha, said, “There is no proposal to throw out the rule under the IPC dealing with the offence of anti-government crime. There is a need to keep the part of the law effective combat anti-national, someone who thinks that part of the country should break off and become independent and terrorist elements.
Arguments In support of Section 124A
- Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in fighting anti-national, (someone who thinks that part of a country should break off and become independent) and terrorist elements.
- It protects the elected government from tries to permanently end, by force the government with violence and illegal means. The continued existence of the government established by law is an extremely important condition of the firm and steady nature of the State.
- If obnoxious behaviour in court invites prisons/punishment action, hatred of government should also attract punishment
- Many districts in different states face a Maoist revolution and rebel groups almost run parallel management. These groups openly fight the permanent end of the state government by revolution.
- Against this background, the permanent ending of Section 120A would be stupid only because it has been wrongly called for in some famous cases.
Arguments against Section 124A
- Section 124A is something that survives from the past of colonial and not appropriate in a system or country where leaders are chosen by votes. It is a restriction on the legal and true exercise in a way that agrees with or is related to the constitution promised that something will happen or that something will work as described freedom of speech and expression.
- Disagreement and critics of the government are an extremely important ingredient of strong and healthy public debate in a full of life. They should not be built as anti-government crimes. The right to question, criticize and change ruler is very basic to the idea.
- The British, who introduced anti-government crime it badly mistreated Indians, have themselves permanently stooped the law in their country. There is no reason, why should not India permanently end this section.
The term used under section 124A like ‘disaffection’, unclear, and subject to different to the sudden ideas and ideas of the officers. IPC and illegal activities prevention act have a legal rule that punishes ‘disrupting the public order’ or ‘permanently ending’ the government with violence and illegal means’. These are good enough for protecting the nation.
This blog is written by Abhay Srivastava, K.R. Mangalam University.
Some more of Abhay BLOGs,
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
