SANJAY HEGDE is a reputed Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. During the peak of anti CAA/NRC movement, when Shaheen Bagh protest had hit the national and international headlines, he was asked by the Supreme Court to mediate with the protestors. Earlier, he appeared for the Government of India before an international arbitral tribunal. From 1996 to 2004 he was on the Union of India’s arguing panel before the Supreme Court. He also worked for a decade as the Advocate on Record for the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, he was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in 2015. Since then he has handled many high profile cases, including the Nirbhaya case, where he was asked by the court to assist as Amicus Curiae. Sanjay has today become a leading voice for civil rights. He graduated from KC Law College in Mumbai. In an interview with MOHD NAUSHAD KAHN, he said, sedition law has no place in a modern democracy. It has to be done away with by parliament or struck down by Court. It is an anachronism which should not be allowed to endure much longer.
How would you like to respond to the ongoing debate on sedition laws?
There ought to have been no debate on sedition laws if that not been misapplied. The Supreme Court had long ago in 1962 itself read down the Section 124-A to very narrow terms. Despite the Supreme Court’s judgment, government and policemen often find it a useful tool of harassment and therefore they launch these prosecutions by filing FIRs and arresting people, knowing fully well that they are unlikely to succeed finally in a trial. This is a useful section where a process itself is a prosecution and punishment. The debate quite properly must be whether the law itself should be allowed to continue.
Has India since Independence used sedition laws to demean the fundamentals of democracy or has it served any purpose?
In Independent India, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru himself took note of how the sedition law was misused by the British where both Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were sentenced under this law. At that point of time, Nehru had said that the sooner we get rid of this law the better. But despite that this government did not do away with it nor has any government thereafter. As I have told you earlier, every government, when not in power, thinks that this law should be done away with but when in power they find it useful to catch some people whom they otherwise cannot catch under any other section.
Do you think the recent Supreme Court decision quashing sedition charges against Vinod Dua will pave the way for redefining our sedition laws?
Vinod Dua’s was an individual case. They have not done much more than applying the principles already laid down. There are other cases which are pending in the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court can use the opportunity to relook at the Constitutionality of sedition law because even though they had upheld in 1960 subject to some very strict condition. The interpretation of Constitution has moved much since those times. So what may have been constitutional in 1960 may now currently be unconstitutional. The only problem is to do that you would require a bench of more than five judges. Constituting that bench and hearing the matter out may take some time. If the Supreme Court is so minded, it has to consider whether it should strike down the section all together.
What according to you should be done to ensure that sedition laws are not misused and is it possible with the given format of sedition laws?
I do not think the sedition law has any place in a modern democracy. It has to be done away with – whether it is done away with by parliament or whether it is struck down by Court. It is an anachronism which should not be allowed to endure much longer.
Are you in favour of reform in sedition laws or scrapping the law is the only way forward?
I think scrapping sedition law entirely is the only way forward. There is absolutely no way of reforming it or trusting any set of policemen with any version of the law. Therefore, scrapping it is the only solution and in any event in the case any speech of disaffection has violent consequences there are other provisions of the IPC to deal with it.
How important is dissent in a democracy and what could be the consequence if the dissenting voices are suppressed?
As far as sedition law is concerned, the country must consider that dissent is a very important safety valve in a democracy. When you shut down dissent by harsh and oppressive laws whether it is by misapplication of sedition laws or misapplication of UAPA, you shut down democracy itself and that is very dangerous. Government by their very nature has to be very limited government, limited by the laws and Constitution and institutions that enforce them.
What kind of changes you have perceived after the new Chief Justice of India took charge. Has judiciary in any way changed from the given perception we had in the past?
See it is the same judges; to say that the judiciary has changed altogether may not be right. Yes, but often good leadership and good captaincy has its own effect on how the players perform.