Opinion Rajshree Chandra writes: Striking off sedition will have little impact if UAPA remains untouched

Buy Now | Our best subscription plan now has a special price

There are reasons to be sceptical. Not too long back, the BJP had attacked the Congress for its 2019 election promise to do away with dark laws like the AFSPA and sedition. Calling the Congress manifesto a “document of Pakistan’s conspiracies”, PM Modi accused the Congress of hatching a conspiracy to destabilise the country and “demoralise” its soldiers. One could, of course, argue that election speeches are not reliable indicators of intent. But the zeal of the ruling regime in criminalising dissent is a matter of record.The Article 14 archive reveals that 2,862 citizens were charged with sedition during the anti-CAA protests; 133 farmers (and representatives) during the farm protests of 2021; 42 persons after the Pulwama attack, and 59 journalists for reportage on the farm bills, Covid-19, Hathras gang rape, citizenship and for being critical of the government were charged with sedition in the last seven years. There has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of sedition cases filed each year after 2014.

It is this track record that makes one suspicious of the government’s intent. But perhaps there’s a change of heart, a change of tack. Sceptic reasoning ought to make as much room for doubt as for a promise. In either case, my argument is that any move to remove sedition is imperative, but by itself, it’s only a half-measure and a half-hearted measure. As long as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is untouched, dissent will continue to be criminalised. The government will claim moral victory but nothing really will change in substance. Here are two reasons why.

First, the sedition law under Section124 A is a part of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where along with penal provisions, there are safeguards and constitutional remedies. Bail is easier, there is provision for anticipatory bail, police have to file a charge sheet within 90 days, failing which the accused arrested is entitled to bail, and so on. These safeguards are not available to those charged under UAPA. As an anti-terror law, it has more stringent provisions and far fewer safeguards. For instance, UAPA permits detention without a charge sheet for upto 180 days, creates a presumption of guilt, places the burden of proof on the accused and creates a strong presumption against bail.

In April, a single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to three Kashmiri students accused of shouting pro-Pakistan slogans in a T-20 cricket match. Justice Ajay Bhanot remarked eloquently: “The unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds which will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans…the foundations of our nation are more enduring.’’ In contrast, especially after the SC’s Watali judgment (2019), bail has become a virtual impossibility for the UAPA accused. The numerous bail rejections for the Bhima Koregaon and Delhi riots accused is a case in point.

Second, let’s just look at the conviction rate of the sedition law. Arrests under sedition law may have risen but the conviction rate is as low as 2.25 per cent. Of the 399 cases that were registered between 2014-20, just nine were convicted. The ministry of home affairs data further reveals that of the cases registered, charge sheets were filed only in 169 cases. This tells us that the sedition law is not a very effective tool for incarceration.

The UAPA is a better bet. The conviction rate is higher. NCRB data reveals that between 2014-2020, 27.5 per cent of the cases saw convictions. But what is more damning is that very few cases even reach the stage where innocence or guilt is proven. In the seven-year period, of the 6,900 cases, only 4.5 per cent of the cases sent for trial reached the stage of completion. And we are not yet talking of cases that languish in protracted pre-trial and trial period. 95.4 per cent cases were still pending trial at the end of each year between 2014-2020.

Many of those charged under sedition are also slapped with charges under the UAPA — Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Siddique Kappan to name a few. For all the attention the sedition law has received, it is the UAPA that does the heavy lifting.
It is expected that after the SC interim order, those imprisoned under the sedition law are likely to get immediate bail. However, retired Justice Manmohan Singh is, reportedly, of the view that this may not be the case for those charged with the draconian UAPA. He rightly says that the “UAPA contains many aspects of the sedition law with far-reaching consequences”.

Civil liberties stand precariously poised in India today. The removal of the sedition law makes a dent, but it will be small and ineffective if the road-roller of civil liberties — the UAPA — remains untouched. We can celebrate the sedition law’s much-awaited demise, but let’s not miss the wood for the trees.

(The writer teaches political science at Janki Devi Memorial College, DU)