January 28,2018:

Bombay High Court Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud while advocating to make ‘sedition’ a non-cognizable, bailable offence and reducing the term of imprisonment while seeking statutory backing for the definition of ‘sedition’ as envisaged in the 1962 judgment stated that Advocates should be given absolute protection from Criminal Defamation.

Abhinav Chandrachud was speaking at a debate held at Zee Jaipur Literature Festival on Issue of Freedom of Speech and Expression in India, in context of his book, "Republic of Rhetoric- Free Speech and the Constitution of India".

Debate was mediated by writer-journalist Salil Tripathi, the panel comprised of ASG Pinky Anand, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, Writer Ashok Vajpeyi and Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) member Vani Tikoo Tripathi as the panel speakers.

Chandrachud  said that,“BR Ambedkar regarded the Republic Day as the Independence Day as on this day, India got its Constitution and the dominion status of 1947 came to an end. The Constitution is the fountain head of all rights that the people in this country enjoy. But the Constitution has sought to maintain status quo and not bring in a major change- what I call the ‘Nehruvian balance’ between change and continuity.”

He further added that,“Some limbs of Constitution are very radical, such as, Article 17, making untouchability punishable, and Article 18, abolishing titles. There is also the right to vote. On the other hand is Article 19(1)(a), conferring the freedom of speech and expression, which is curtailed by the restrictions of sedition, obscenity, hate speech, contempt of court, etc, by Article 19(2)- the provisions of the IPC, which was drafted in colonial India, have been introduced in the Constitution. ‘Sedition’ was a misdemeanour, a bailable offence punishable with 2 years’ imprisonment in England, but in colonial India, it was a non-bailable offence attracting life imprisonment. The situation has not changed post Independence. With the introduction of the CrPC of 1973, it is also cognizable offence”.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand stated that,“No right can be absolute either in India or elsewhere. One person’s right is another person’s obligation; a large number of interests have to be reconciled. Can one be allowed to harm the security of the State, its foreign relations or defame another in the exercise of their right?”

She further added that,“Although ‘sedition’ under Section 124A of the IPC does not require an act of violence as an ingredient of the offence, in the case of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court observed that only seditious acts that incite violence shall be punishable. Even obscenity is being interpreted in accordance with the contemporary standards of the society. A transition is coming”.

 

 

Picture Source :