The terms “sedition” or “rajdroh” are relics of colonialism and their “erasure” from penal laws marks a stride toward progress, Professor G S Bajpai, Vice-Chancellor of National Law University, Delhi, and convenor of a panel set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to look at reform of criminal laws, said. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, tabled in Lok Sabha on Friday to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), refrains from using the word “sedition”. However, it contains a provision that penalises “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. Asked why a similar offence is prescribed even as the government intends to do away with sedition, Professor Bajpai told The Indian Express: “The reformation of India's sedition law has perennially been a complex discourse, entailing a delicate balance between the imperatives of national security and the prerogatives of individual liberty. The erasure of terms like ‘sedition’ or ‘rajdroh’ marks an initial stride toward progress, as these terms are relics of colonialism, insinuating acts against monarchy.” Saying that it is necessary to effectively deal with “those who deliberately jeopardise the security of our nation and its citizens”, he said the new provision contains safeguards that lay emphasis on the “mens rea” aspect, or criminal intent. Bajpai said the proposed offence “markedly diverges” from Section 124A of the IPC that criminalised sedition since it is “more specific, unambiguously addressing secessionism, separatism and armed rebellion”. “This eliminates vague phrases such as ‘disaffection towards the established government’ or ‘hatred or contempt’, thereby significantly curtailing the potential for misuse. This law has been conceived to confront actions that imperil the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the nation, deriving its authority from Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution,” he said. The proposed section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita states: “Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” Elaborating on this, Bajpai said: “The inclusion of 'purposely or knowingly' introduces the element of criminal intent, a criterion absent in the preceding version. This safeguards individuals who may critique the government or public authorities for creative reasons, as the onus rests on the state to demonstrate the presence of criminal intent. In its absence, such individuals cannot be subjected to prosecution.” In May 2020, the MHA had set up a five-member panel to look at a sweeping overhaul of criminal laws. Bajpai served as convenor of the panel, which put up a detailed questionnaire on 49 aspects of criminal law – from criminalising marital rape, to making sexual offences gender-neutral, introducing alternate forms of punishment, and revisiting the law on sedition. Proposing a complete overhaul of colonial-era criminal laws, Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled three Bills in Lok Sabha on Friday – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to replace the IPC; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC); and Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill, 2023, to replace the Indian Evidence Act. The Bills were referred to a standing committee.
