Sedition laws and India

Human Rights Watch, an International rights group has expressed concern over India’s sedition laws being misused to hush peaceful political criticism and has appealed that the colonial-era sedition law be immediately repealed or amended.
The International watch group demanded that sedition cases against Dr. Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, and others, be dropped.
In two recent cases, in New Delhi and Chhattisgarh, the authorities have pursued sedition charges, despite a longstanding Supreme Court ruling that prosecution under the sedition law requires incitement to violence.
On December 24, 2010, a court sentenced Dr. Binayak Sen, a vocal critic of the Chhattisgarh state government’s counterinsurgency policies against violent Maoist rebels, to life in prison for sedition. The judge found no evidence that Sen was a member of any outlawed Maoist group or that he was involved in violence against the state.
In New Delhi, a magistrate directed the police in November 2010 to investigate sedition charges against the writer Arundhati Roy even though the Indian government in late October had decided against filing such charges. The allegations against Roy and five others stemmed from speeches they made on October 21 in New Delhi supporting Kashmiri secession. The Home Ministry said that pursuing sedition charges was inappropriate because there was no evidence of inciting violence.
India’s sedition law, section 124A of the Penal Code, prohibits any words either spoken or written, or any signs or visible representation that can cause “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection,” toward the government.
In a landmark ruling in 1962, Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that unless the accused incited violence by their speech or action, it would no longer constitute sedition, as it would otherwise violate the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, prohibits restrictions on freedom of expression on national security grounds unless they are provided by law, strictly construed, and necessary and proportionate to address a legitimate threat.
These recent cases have once again brought to the fore, India’s reluctance to give space to any voice of dissent. These acts by biggest democracy in the world are discouraging to say the least. It is in direct contrast to the very core of democracy.