Dear Editor
WHILE searching the internet as I am wont to do, the headline of an article written by Prasun Sonwalkar in Hindustantimes caught my eye. The Sedition Act and Cybercrime are of current interest and relevance in Guyana.

The article was extremely informative and I decided that I had to share it with readers of this newspaper. Readers would no doubt discern the manner in which the two countries, one that has a republican system of democracy in place whereas the other has a system that is based on the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, dealt with the issue of sedition, a topic which I daresay is going to be controversial in Guyana.
“Sedition law in UK abolished in 2009, continues in India” by Prasun Sonwalkar in Hindustantimes.

A colonial era law intended to suppress the voice of freedom continues in force in India, the world’s largest democracy, but Britain itself abolished sedition as a criminal offence in 2009 as it was considered to be a relic of an era where freedom of expression was not considered a right as it is now.

Legislation in India against sedition continues to be actively used despite the fact that they are relics of the British Raj. Sedition in Britain was abolished through the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, under Gordon Brown’s Labour government. Three offences were abolished: the offences of sedition and seditious libel; the offence of defamatory libel and the offence of obscene libel.

The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Claire Ward said at the time of the Act’s enactment: “Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today”.

“Freedom of speech is now seen as the touchstone of democracy and the ability of individuals to criticise the State is crucial to maintaining freedom”.
Britain’s Law Commission had recommended the abolition of the law of sedition in 1977. According to Claire, “The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom”.

“Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech”.
In contrast to the above, “The Indian Constitution ostensibly guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen, but itself allows significant restrictions. In India, citizens are free to criticize the government, politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. However, speech can be restricted on grounds of security, morality and incitement. There have been landmark cases in the Indian Supreme Court that have affirmed the nation’s policy of allowing free press and freedom of expression to every citizen, with other cases in which the Court has upheld restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press”
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution states that:

All citizens shall have the right –
1. to freedom of speech and expression
2. to assemble peaceably and without arms
3. to form associations or unions
4. to love freely throughout the territory of India
5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
6. to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
These rights are limited so as not to affect –
* The integrity of India
* The security of the State
* Friendly relations with foreign States
* Public Order
* Decency or morality
* Contempt of court
* Defamation or incitement to an offence.

“Freedom of speech is restricted by the National Security Act of 1980 and in the past, by the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001, The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) from 1985 to 1995, and similar measures. Freedom of speech is also restricted to section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with sedition and makes any speech or expression which bring contempt towards government punishable by imprisonment extending from three years to life. In 1962, the Supreme Court of India held this section to be constitutionally valid in the case Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar”.

Regards
Julius Williams