forensic probe later found that two of the seven videos on the basis of which arrests were made were in fact doctored.42 In a separate incident of arrest of college students on charges of sedition, the Metropolitan Magistrate hearing the case said that the authenticity of the videos should be determined before the filing of an FIR.43 But even if the contents of the videos of the JNU protests were known to be true, the speech in question would still not qualify as seditious.44 It is established law in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab45 that raising separatist slogans once or twice by a few individuals does not amount to exciting or aiming to excite hatred or disaffection towards the government. In the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court required that one differentiate between “advocacy” and “incitement” of violence, and that only the latter is punishable. Yet, across the country, public opinion continues to be mobilised around such doctored videos and police continue to book charges and arrest persons for the most innocuous of speech. The misapplication of the section does not stop with the arrest of those making the speech, but bizarrely, extends even to those receiving it. For example, a WhatsApp group administrator was arrested in Karnataka for receiving a message insulting the prime minister.46 Or in some cases, charges are brought against “unknown persons”: Haryana police filed an FIR against “unknown persons” for a message shared on WhatsApp on the topic of the Jat agitation, which was “provoking”.47 It is common for the sedition provision to be used in conjunction with the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to arrest persons even when no offences are made out. Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 states that: or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon Thus, a student was arrested in Kerala for altering the lyrics of the national anthem in a Facebook post and “insulting” India, in addition to refusing to stand up for the national anthem.48 Another man, a writer, was taken into custody for a similar charge of showing disrespect to the national anthem in his book and in a Facebook post, in December 2016 – he was booked for sedition.49 In an atmosphere of heightened performative nationalism, these legislations are seeing more use to target political speech on social media. Common Cause, a not-for-profit organisation, observing widespread misuse of the sedition section, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court.50 The petition notes that according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2014, 47 sedition cases were reported in the year across nine states; many of these cases did not satisfy the prerequisite of incitement of violence. Of the 58 people arrested for sedition, only one person was convicted. The figures continue to be similarly abysmal for 2015, the last year for which NCRB data is available as of the time of writing. Responding to a question raised in the Lok Sabha, the government said that 35 cases of sedition were registered across the country in 2016.51 The petition filed by Common Cause asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring certification from the Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police that the alleged seditious act either led to incitement of violence or had the tendency or intention to create public disorder, before the filing of an FIR. The Court issued an order that criticism against the government does not constitute sedition, but did not see it “necessary” to issue more specific directions.52 42 Das, B. (2016, 19 February). Forensic experts say Kanhaiya video was doctored. IndiaToday. www.indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ forensic-experts-say-kanhaiya-video-was-doctored/1/600808.html 43 Press Trust of India. (2017, 29 August). Ramjas College Ruckus: Can’t Press Sedition on Basis of Unathenticated Videos, Says Delhi Court. News 18. www.news18.com/news/india/ramjas-ruckuscant-press-sedition-on-basis-of-unathenticated-videos-sayscourt-1504375.html 44 Ibid. 45 1995 (1) SCR 411. 46 Express News Service. (2017, 3 May) Karnataka: WhatsApp group admin in jail over PM Narendra Modi post. Indian Express. www. indianexpress.com/article/india/karnataka-whatsapp-groupadmin-in-jail-over-pm-narendra-modi-post-4638071/ 47 Narrain, S., & Seshu, G. (2016, 19 August). Sedition goes viral. The Hoot. http://www.thehoot.org/free-speech/media-freedom/ sedition-goes-viral-9578 48 The Hindu. (2014, 21 August). Insult to national anthem: Youth held. The Hindu. www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tpkerala/insult-to-national-anthem-youth-held/article6336783.ece 49 Hindustan Times. (2016, 19 December). Kerala writer Chavara, held for ‘insulting national anthem’, on fast. Hindustan Times. www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/arrested-keralawriter-on-fast-seeking-withdrawal-of-sedition-case/story7Uap5YaSugKiuY6VTdtmSO.html 50 Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India. WP (Civil) 683 of 2016. 51 Press Trust of India. (2017, 1 August). 35 sedition cases registered in 2016, govt tells Lok Sabha. Hindustan Times. http://www. hindustantimes.com/india-news/35-sedition-cases-registered-in2016-govt-tells-lok-sabha/story-k5HUAkOZoHsYnCA3oZ5A2H.html 52 Venkatesan, J. (2016, 5 September). Supreme Court Warns Police That Criticism of Government Is Not Sedition. The Wire. https:// thewire.in/64281/criticism-of-government-does-not-constitutesedition-says-supreme-court 58 / Unshackling Expression