Sometimes, there are issues which areu00a0 are of national importance and need to be addressed regularly. The way the law of sedition has been used to suppress Dr Binayak Sen's voice and that of his likes prompted me to write this particular editorial. It is a matter of shame that how we, even today, clutch to our colonial past and its discriminatory laws, which were crafted to bootlick a select few who run the government.

Sen was arrested for the first time in May 2007 on the charges of allegedly helping jailed Maoist Narayan Sanyal under the garb of providing medical aid. Not to forget that the entire series of his meetings with Sanyal was being supervised by the jail authorities themselves. Despite this, the court sentenced Sen to life in prison for sedition. The sentence was passed without finding any substantial evidence that could have proved Sen's association with Maoist group(s).

Gandhiji, during his sedition trial in 1922, described the law as the "prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of a citizen" and further stated that it was important to provide a citizen with freedom to display his "fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence."

The charges of sedition against Sen have brought to light this prevailing archaic law whose legitimacy can only be comprehended after going into its historical milieu and the reason why it was drafted. In Indian, sedition dates back to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, wherein the objective was to forcefully suppress the democratic aspirations of a particular section of society. Its skeleton was derived from the common law of seditious libel, meant to control press and publications during that time. In its current state, the yardstick that gauges the amplitude of disaffection and the resultant violence is vaguely defined and is highly subjective.