April 18, 2026

Sharad Pawar Is Wrong: Section 66A Of The IT Act Was As Draconian As Section 124A Of The IPC

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-04-29 10:15:30

About the Author

Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

View all posts by this Author

Sharad Pawar has submitted an additional affidavit before the Koregaon Bhima inquiry commission suggesting that Section 124A of the IPC (commonly known as the sedition law) be repealed as part of legal reforms and Section 66A of the IT Act be reintroduced to ensure that law enforcing agencies can maintain law and order and prevent riots. While Pawar is correct in suggesting the repeal of Section 124A, he is wrong in demanding the reintroduction of Section 66A simply because that is like taking away an AK-47 from an assassin and handing him an AK-57 instead. Section 124A is, and Section 66A was, draconian and designed to curb dissent and free speech. They are full of poorly defined and ambiguous terms which are misused by the State to charge people with crimes against the state for just holding views that are not in consonance with the views of the ruling dispensation. Both are misused by the Centre and the states regardless of which political party is in power.

India has many draconian laws that are used to curb dissent and free speech. The Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Public Safety Act and the National Security Act, 1980 are all designed to do so. The real legal reform will be to amend these Acts to take away the arbitrary power they bestow on the executive to act against the citizen if he dissents against the government. The real legal reform will be to do away with multiple laws on the same subject and introduce a single law which has clearly defined terms and proper checks and balances to prevent the government from using it arbitrarily. Differing with the government is a democratic and constitutional right and as the Supreme Court had observed in Kedar Nath v. the State of Bihar, there exists a very thin line between hatred towards the Government and any legitimate political activity carried by the citizens. It is for this reason that any law that seeks to penalize citizens for holding a contrary view must be fair, not prone to misuse and must clearly define what constitutes an offence that is likely to start riots and/or disturb public peace.