New Delhi: The Assam government’s repeated use of sedition law against The Wire’s founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan, its editorial team, journalists who have written for it and the interviewer for one of its shows, Karan Thapar, continues to invite outrage on social media, with many noting this flagrant abuse of power to clampdown on press freedom.Editorials on English newspapers have flagged this in no uncertain terms.The Indian Express, in an editorial headlined ‘Heavy-handed state’ with the strap – ‘Invocation of sedition law against journalists by Himanta Biswa Sarma government stifles free expression, violates SC guidelines,’ notes how such actions threaten press freedom, due process, and citizens’ right to be informed.The editorial establishes a chronology of events, noting how the second summons came after a Supreme Court order protecting The Wire and Varadarajan:“The Assam Police have summoned journalist and The Wire editor Siddharth Varadarajan in a case of sedition, over an article on Operation Sindoor carried by the online portal. The article carried comments by India’s military attache to Indonesia on IAF jets and military tactics employed during Operation Sindoor and was widely reported. It is now part of police case diaries for being an act “endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. On August 12, the Supreme Court directed the Assam police to not take any “coercive steps” against Varadarajan. However, in defiance of the Court order, the police registered a second FIR in a different district.”The paper said that invoking the provisions of sedition for a news report and the selective and unfair deployment of state machinery against journalists “raises serious questions about violation of due process and infringement of fundamental rights.”The editorial cites the Supreme Court judgement in the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh case, where it made clear that criticism of the government, however harsh, is not sedition unless it directly incites violence or fosters public disorder. The editorial, crucially, observed how the government had asked for an opportunity in 2022 to repeal the sedition law before it was struck down. While the Supreme Court had expressed hope for fairness, the editorial says:“But in 2023, when the new Nyaya Samhitas were brought in, the law on sedition was retained with a mere change in nomenclature. The name has changed from “rajdroh” to “deshdroh”, but the dispiriting misuse of the law continues.”The editorial quoted former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud from May 2020, when he gave relief to Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami: “To allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society.”The editorial finishes with the line noting that as the Supreme Court hears challenges to the new sedition law, “the Assam government must urgently heed the Court’s caution.”To muzzleIn its editorial, The Telegraph in Kolkata found that the Assam police’s use of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against The Wire’s editors a blatant attempt to muzzle the press, despite the Supreme Court’s suspension of the sedition law.“A country where journalistic criticism or reportage invites charges under laws similar to sedition raises significant concerns about the freedom of the press,” the editorial begins, laying out the details of the case.The editorial called that second summons an “outstanding example of weaponising the law against journalists, writers, dissenters and activists that has become commonplace in today’s India” and noted that it also “showed a refusal to acknowledge the message sent by the court in the first instance.”It said:“Journalists, who are meant to be free to criticise government action or policies if necessary, have become a favourite target of governments wishing to silence any difference of opinion.”Telegraph observed that “all journalists have the right to express themselves and it is important for the Supreme Court to extend protection to them always.” But it added that the fact that the court’s protection should be necessary in what is meant to be a free country and a democracy is “tragic”.It uses strong words to add a missive to the future:“Journalists carry out the extremely important function of providing checks and balances, of giving information, and indirectly keeping in sight the positive values that underlie a democracy. They act as a bridge between the people and the authorities. To harass them and silence them by using the law sabotages journalistic autonomy, the law itself and the Constitution.”Junk Sedition LawEconomic Times opened its editorial with a line from Alexander Pope’s 1735 poem Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot, “Who breaks a butterfly with a wheel?,” expressing hope that it “should be esoteric enough to not catch the eye of the ‘usually suspicious’.”It makes note of the Assam Police’s penchant to round up what it says are the usual suspects – journalists:“The rhetorical question points to the use of excessive force or punishment for what is, at worst, a minor offence. Assam Police’s dogged pursuit of journalists they deem to have committed seditious acts under Section 152 of BNS is a riveting example of a bad law being used selectively against ‘usual suspects’.”This second FIR against various people at and associated with The Wire, says ET, “remains oddly outside public purview — oddly because the law requires FIRs to be made public, with copies shared with the accused.”In tracing the beginning of the Assam Police’s efforts, ET notes further oddness:“All this, ostensibly because of a June news report that quoted India’s defence attaché in Indonesia stating in a seminar about loss of IAF fighter jets during Op Sindoor, and accusing the news platform of publishing ‘misleading’ reports. Even if the report contained inaccuracies — and it had quoted the Indian embassy in Jakarta about the attaché’s comments being taken ‘out of context’ — how it ‘excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India’ is anybody’s guess outside a police state.”No details of this second FIR being shared, by itself, “is cause enough for the law on sedition to be junked,” ET says. “The danger doesn’t apply only to BJP-ruled states like Assam, but also to non-BJP-ruled states where coteries also aspire to be more loyal than their king, or queen,” it presciently says.Sedition redux: On trampling on press freedomThe Hindu has powerfully headlined its editorial as above.In a sharp lede, it noted:“Filing frivolous cases against publications and summoning journalists without proper investigation or perusal of material evidence have become a part of the police playbook in States ruled by vindictive politicians who brook no criticism.”Laying out the details of the cases, the editorial also notes how The Wire has also pointed to other disturbing issues – “the summons do not carry the FIR date or provide any details of the alleged offence or include a copy of the FIR – all of which are mandatory according to the BNSS sections associated with the summons. In addition, keeping the FIRs secret and not mentioning the reasons for the summons hint at police intimidation.”Critics of Section 152, the editorial notes, had rightly feared that it was a rebranded version of the colonial-era sedition law, whose cases the Court had kept in abeyance in 2022.It observes the loopholes that populate the language of sedition cases:“Section 152 has even more expansive and dangerous provisions, setting the bar much lower for prosecution than the previous sedition law. Terms such as “knowingly” could allow for prosecution even where there was no malicious intent to cause harm, unlike Section 124A’s strict requirement to prove clear intent to incite disaffection. The vague language around “sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” provides dangerous latitude to law enforcement agencies. Even legitimate acts such as criticism of government policy could be construed as “endangering unity”. Without clear definitions or safeguards, Section 152 can target individuals for merely expressing opinions that authorities deem threatening.”It finds that this law’s invocation against “journalists questioning government narratives creates a chilling effect on press freedom.”The Assam Police’s defiant response despite the court’s ruling, The Hindu says, suggests that “without stronger judicial oversight and clearer guidelines, Section 152 will continue to be weaponised against dissent.” It says that the onus now lies on the court to recognise the unconstitutionality of the sedition laws, in their earlier form or rebranded, “which have no place in a democratic society.”‘Sedition law in tougher recast’In its editorial, The Deccan Herald called it a “Kafkaesque situation” in which two persons have been threatened with arrests for crimes they have not been told of, under a law whose validity is uncertain.It further notes India’s abysmal rank on the press freedom index:Journalists have the right to report and comment on events of public interest- it is an extension of the citizen’s right to free speech and is the lifeblood of democracy. This right is in danger in the country, with journalists and media organisations under constant pressure to conform and comply with the government. The threat is real-the largest democracy is ranked 151st in the world press freedom index. If use of Section 152 of the BNS against journalists furthers a familiar agenda of muting expression the cases against The Wire journalists and similar actions elsewhere in the country are an indication, the ranking is unlikely to see any marked progress.‘Time to Review Abuse of Sedition Law’The New Indian Express writes that the law of sedition has been criticised for long, noting senior journalist Sashi Kumar’s intervention plea with the Supreme Court in 2021, challenging the Indian Penal Code’s Section 124A, the earlier provision on sedition.“Worries peaked when the Law Commission suggested its retention in 2023 and the BNS, while replacing the IPC, lowered the bar for weighing offence under it. Acknowledging the possibility of its abuse, the Law Commission had suggested guardrails that included a written police report within seven days showing “cogent evidence” of offence, on which the government would base its decision to lodge an FIR. None of these are in the new law. Neither was the basic requirement of sharing the FIR with the accused initially followed in the case of The Wire.”It further notes:“If reports are inaccurate or indecent, journalists should indeed be hauled up. Other laws can be invoked to seek redress for such faults. However, if democracy is to be protected, the right of journalists to ask questions of the government should be accorded at least as much weight as the State’s prerogative to avert such questions in the name of protecting public order or national security. To level a charge as serious as sedition to tilt the scale the other way is to debilitate democracy itself.”The paper writes that its not for the sedition law’s colonial-era roots that it should be repealed, “but because of the colonial-minded silencing it’s being used for.”