Article 124A, Sedition Law of India should not be abolished
Debate Rounds (3)
I thank Pro for starting this interesting debate. I will take the Con position and argue that Article 124A should be abolished. I take it from Pro that the burden of proof is shared.
Pro has misrepresented what Article 124A actually says. I will quote it directly:
“124A. Sedition. — 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, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."
In summary, the sedition law is merely a political tool used to silence criticism or hatred towards the ruling Government (the country itself is not even mentioned in the article itself).
Pro argues, "By sedition we mean to say anyone, who by words, written or verbal, by signs or by anything tries to bring hatred for the country and promote violence against one's own country. "
Refutation: This doesn't match Article 124A itself and how it defines sedition. If you want to argue whether an article should be abolished or not, you should follow what that article itself says.
Pro argues, "In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Freedom of speech has certain reasonable restrictions which include sovereignty, integrity and public order of the country."
Refutation: Based on this definition, there should be no freedom that leads to revolutions or revolutionary changes because the order of the country might be affected. If this was to be taken seriously, there would have been no progress in human history and civilization but a total silence toward backwardness to preserve sovereignty. It is nothing more than democracy to have people who are either anti-government or pro-government. This was only considered illegal by British colonialists who reintroduced the aforementioned article to serve their own political and economical interests.
Pro argues, "Freedom of speech implies the right to express one's beliefs but not at the cost of disintegrating the unity of the country. Vandalism is condemnable while sedition is free speech?"
Refutation: To think that an act of sedition, that is challenging the government, would make a massive country collapse is an unrealistic assumption that the country is a house of cards. India is a massive political landscape with a high diversity of opinions and attitudes. Trying to make anti-government attitudes illegal and punishable will not unify but extend the fracture.
In conclusion, Pro misrepresented Article 124A and argued against a strawman. I have shown the misrepresentation and argued that Article 124A should be abolished as it is meant to prohibit challenging the government at the expense of human progress and civilization.
 Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. K.D. Gaur. Fourth Edition. Universal Law Publishing, 2009. Page 226.
ishita007 forfeited this round.
I extend arguments.
ishita007 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.