Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code deals with sedition and is commonly known as Sedition Law which says:
“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Federal or Provincial Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be
added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be
added, or with fine.” This law has a colonial background and was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 to suppress the voices of criticism and dissent in the British Sub-Continent. Prominent freedom movement leader Mahatma Ghandhi was accused of sedition and sentenced to six years in jail, so was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who was represented in court by none other than a young Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the man who would go on to become the founding father of Pakistan. Post-colonialism, both India and Pakistan have carried on this colonial legacy. Politicians, journalists, students, human rights activists and legendary poets like Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Habib Jalib were tried under this provision of the PPC. Recently, there have been various arrests on sedition by the former and current government in Pakistan however, this law is inconsistent with and in derogation of the fundamental rights provided under article 8 and 19 of the constitution.
Chapter 1 of the constitution on fundamental rights says:
“Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights to be void“.
Article 19 of the constitution deals with one of the fundamental rights which is the freedom of speech and expression, the cornerstone of democracy, while sedition law restricts article 19 and therefore violets article 8.
Advocate Abuzar Salman Khan Niazi, who is currently challenging the constitutionality of aforementioned law, argues that “Section 124-A is opposed to the preamble of the Constitution, which commands that sovereignty over Pakistan on behalf of Allah belongs to the people of Pakistan. This notion asserts the paramountcy of the people’s will over everything. The elected representatives are nothing but the mediums through which the collective will of the people is expressed, asserted and executed. The people possess the authority not only to change the existing government but to alter the Constitution itself“.
Now, mere criticism of the government by people, whose will, according to the preamble of the constitution, is above the government, doesn’t amount to sedition and hatred but rather plays an important role in democracy to make things better in the larger interests of the public.
It is important to take into consideration the other perspective which is that of the federal government of Pakistan, which defends the sedition law as saying “the right of freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute and unfettered right but is subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offeņce.
The Supreme Court of India in the Vombatkere case (2022) has maintained that this law be put in abeyance and no further cases be filed under 124-A of the Indian Penal Code untill the central government rethinks it.
While many countries have also abolished this draconian law including the UK, but India and Pakistan still find it hard to do it.
In a democracy singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism, moreover exempting the government of constructive criticism and debate is against democratic values.
Most of the cases filed under 124-A are more of political than legal, furthermore it is a tool to curb political dissent and free speech. There is enormous misuse. Use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself
In light of the above discussion, section 124-A must be changed, if not abolished, since laws must change with time to remain relevant and effective.
During his three months of solitary confinement, the renowned Marxist poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz wrote:
“My pen and tablet, all that I had
Taken away from me
But what’s there to grieve for?
For I have dipped my fingers in my heart’s blood
So what if my lips have been sealed shut?
I have now put a tongue in
Each and every link of the chain”
(Dast-e-Saba)
