#dnaEdit: Above the fray

It is tempting to read President Pranab Mukherjee’s speech in Kochi on the need for a thorough revision of the Indian Penal Code as a comment or a critique on the invoking of sedition laws against Jawaharlal Nehru University students. However, the speech was made at an event to commemorate the 155th anniversary of the IPC coming into effect, and the President, like any other learned person, was merely taking note of its strengths and the weaknesses. These were Mukherjee’s words: “There is no doubt that the IPC as a premier code for criminal law... Nevertheless, it requires a thorough revision to meet the changing needs of the twenty-first century.

The IPC has undergone very few changes... very few crimes have been added to the initial list of crimes and declared punishable. Even now, there are offences in the Code which were enacted by the British to meet their colonial needs. Yet, there are many new offences which have to be properly defined and incorporated in the Code.” The President notes that the IPC continues to have colonial-era laws that served the British Raj’s political needs, but he refrained from pointing out which were these laws. This is in stark contrast to his intervention in the intolerance debate, where Mukherjee twice made a strong pitch for accepting dissenting views. 

While the intolerance debate sprung out of an attack on eating habits, the JNU case involves a bunch of students accused of allegedly shouting anti-national slogans with attempts now being made to link them to banned outfits. In his term as president, Mukherjee has taken a strong view on crimes against the state by rejecting the mercy petitions of terror convicts. In contrast, his predecessors, APJ Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Patil, had been rather circumspect, leaving these mercy petitions pending during their tenures. In this context, one can never be too certain about where Mukherjee stands on sedition or the criminalisation of homosexuality and attempted suicide, unless he specifically puts forth his view on these matters. Now that a man no less than Mukherjee, the head of state, has demanded a review of the IPC, can the government he heads beg to have a different opinion?

While the courts have been quite clear that mere slogan shouting does not amount to sedition, that is not reflected in Section 124A of the IPC. It continues to define sedition as “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 Government established by law in India”. No wonder then that the police forces across the country, spurred by political masters, continue to invoke sedition charges without regard for settled law.

Similarly, the law on homosexuality, which is defined in archaic terms as carnal intercourse against the order of nature in the Indian Penal Code, has no place in the statute books of the 21st century. Admittedly, there have been several amendments, revisions and additions to the IPC. The most notable are the changes in the provisions related to sexual offences that were necessitated by the Mathura, Vishakha and Nirbhaya cases. Nearly ten Law Commission reports have reviewed various sections of the IPC in a piecemeal manner. But a comprehensive review (the 156th report comes closest) is yet to be undertaken. President Mukherjee also noted the role of the police in upholding the rule of law. Like the IPC, the remnants of colonial rule are also evident in many aspects of policing. Their resort to brute force, custodial violence and political partisanship is not in line with the constitutional ethos. President Mukherjee may have refrained from an outright comment on the JNU controversy, but his comment on penal laws and policing structures are as relevant as the ongoing debate on nationalism.