Presenting the 60-year-old demand for a ‘Tamil nation’ as history is not sedition !

Madras High Court ruling

New Delhi – Merely making a historical reference in a book to the 1967 demand for an independent Tamil Nadu cannot be regarded as ‘sedition’ in the present day. There is a clear distinction between documenting a historical event and promoting separatism in the present. Such cases should be assessed in the light of the prevailing social circumstances, the Madras High Court ruled in an important judgment.

The Court clarified that:

1. The essence of sedition is to create, or attempt to create, hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the Government.

2. Therefore, any statement should be evaluated in the context of the social and national environment prevailing at the relevant time.

3. Mentioning past events in a history book, research work or other document may constitute an exercise of the right to freedom of expression. If a publication merely records historical events and does not attempt to incite people against the Government in the present, it cannot be termed sedition.

4. India’s political environment in 1967 was entirely different from that of today. Today, India is more socially and nationally organised, and such historical references are unlikely to generate hatred towards the Government among the general public.

5. The book in question does not present the demand for an independent nation as a present-day campaign. Merely referring to historical events does not, by itself, amount to the offence of sedition.

6. Any statement must be read in its complete context. A criminal offence cannot be established by isolating a single sentence or passage.

7. This approach may also provide important guidance in future cases relating to history, research and publishing.

8. The use of criminal law should remain confined to cases involving actual incitement or the incitement of violence.

What was the case about ?

The sedition case is related to a publishing house named ‘Kalagam Pathippagam’, against whose directors the Police had filed a chargesheet. A book published in 2014 referred to Thamizharasan’s 1967 demand to make Tamil Nadu an independent nation and to guerrilla warfare. On this basis, proceedings were initiated against the publishers under the sedition provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The principal accused in the case, writer Elangovan, died during the course of the trial, while two publishers approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings. The petitioners argued before the Court that their book merely referred to historical events and did not promote separatism in the present. They had no such intention.