In recent times, the issue of sedition laws and their impact on freedom of speech has gained significant attention in South Asia. This discussion is particularly relevant in the context of Pakistan’s Lahore High Court annulling the offense of sedition in the Pakistan Penal Code and the pending challenge to India’s Section 124A, which criminalizes words that incite disaffection toward the government. While the legal status of sedition laws is being examined, their underlying principles seem to have found their way into other provisions of law that restrict freedom of speech. This article delves into the repercussions of these laws and the implications for free expression in the region.
On March 30, the Lahore High Court struck down the offense of sedition in the Pakistan Penal Code. This move drew attention as it highlighted the growing concern over the stifling of free speech in the country. Pakistan’s practice of using blasphemy laws to target its marginalized citizens has long been criticized. While the annulment of sedition laws is a step forward, the broader issue of curbing dissent through other means persists.
Around the same time, in India, there were several arrests and complaints filed against individuals involved in posting anti-government posters in Delhi and Ahmedabad. Although these detainees were not accused of sedition, they were booked under charges of criminal conspiracy to cause public mischief and deface public property. The printing press involved also faced allegations of breaching provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. India’s sedition law, Section 124A, which seeks to criminalize words that incite hatred or contempt toward the government, is currently under review by the Supreme Court. While the law remains in abeyance, its chilling effect on freedom of speech persists.
The striking down of sedition laws does not necessarily dismantle the core principles that underpin them. In both Pakistan and India, the demand for reverence to established ideas and the suppression of dissenting voices persist through other provisions of law that criminalize speech. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, often exploited against marginalized communities, and India’s “hurting of sentiments” provisions serve as near approximations of the sedition logic.
India’s recent arrest of actor Chetan Kumar exemplifies the continued restriction on freedom of speech. Kumar was remanded to 14 days in judicial custody and faced the threat of revocation of his overseas citizenship for a tweet criticizing Hindutva. Although he was eventually granted bail, the incident highlights the vulnerability of individuals expressing dissenting views and the potential consequences they face under different legal provisions.
While the Lahore High Court’s decision to annul the offense of sedition in Pakistan’s Penal Code is a positive step toward safeguarding freedom of speech, the broader issue of curbing dissent remains. India’s pending review of its sedition law offers hope for reform, but it is crucial to address the underlying principles that continue to restrict free expression. The transplanted logic of sedition into other provisions of law, such as blasphemy and hurting of sentiments, further complicates the situation. As constitutional courts examine the validity of sedition laws, it is essential to consider the far-reaching impact these laws have on the fundamental right to freedom of speech in South Asia.