TABLE OF CONTENT: -

I.INTRODUCTION
A. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
C. HYPOTHESIS
D. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

II. DEVELOPMENT REGARDING SEDITION LAW IN INDIA

A. SEDITION: DEFINED
B. HISTORY OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA
C. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SEDITION LAWS
D. UDHR PROVISION
E. SEDITION LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES
III. MISUSE OF SEDITION LAW AT THE OF STAKE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH.
IV. CONCLUSIONS.
V. REFERENCES.
 I.INTRODUCTION: -
“Sedition may be defined as a conduct which has, either as its object or as its natural
consequence, the unlawful display of dissatisfaction with the government or with existing order
of society. The seditious conduct may be by word, by date or by writing.” 1Their have been
various laws that were inherited from the colonial regime in India among them the laws relating
to his sedition are considered to be controversial in nature. There have been a constant
modifications and interpretations since the independence of these seditious laws. In this paper, I
have presented my views on how sedition law is being misused at stake of freedom of speech.
During the study of my topic, I came across various cases of sedition both in the High Court and
the Supreme Court where it is seen that the offense of sedition is increasingly becoming obsolete.

Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak...
Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?” Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-
judge Bench, orally addressed Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar
Mehta, appearing for the Centre.2 Mahatma Gandhi have called section 124A the price among
the political sections of IPC designed to suppress the liberty of citizens. Jawaharlal said that the
provision was obnoxious and highly objectionable and the sooner we get rid of it the better. 3
These all these thoughts make it very clear that it a draconian law that need to be repealed so that
citizen can fully utilize their freedom of speech without the fear of getting punished.

A. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
1. Nivedita Saksena and Siddhartha Srivastava. “AN ANALYSIS OF THE MODERN
OFFENCE OF SEDITION”. NJUS LAW REVIEW.7NUJS L.Rev 121(2014). In this
article the authors attempt to scrape the provision of Sedition from IPC and other laws
making sedition as an offence. They also attempt to examine the judicial application of
sedition both in colonial and present times. They discussed various cases including
Kedarnath case and other cases which settled between 2000-2015.They also focuses on
the nature of the “government established by law.”

1
Stephen in his Commentaries, on the Laws of England, 21st Edition, volume IV, at pages 141- 142.
Available at: https://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Essay.pdf
2
Krishan Das Rajgopal. The Hindu.Published on 15 July 2021.available at:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/is-this-law-necessary-sc-seeks-centres-response-on-pleas-challening-
sedition-law/article35336402.ece
3
available at: https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Sedition-Law-in-India.pdf
2. LAW COMMISION OF INDIA. Consultation paper on “Sedition". Published on – 30
August 2018. In this consultation paper was published in the official gazette. in this
consultation paper, The Law commission was to conside section 124-A of IPC. Various
meetings were held regarding the topic but the commission felt the need for more
discussion on this topic. The paper consists of various aspects of sedition law both at the
national as well as international level.
3. Sapna Jain. “Law of Sedition in India.”International Journal of Advanced Legal Research
Published on –6 October 2020. In this article the author focuses on the historical
background of Sedition laws in India.It further talks about how sedition law is misused in
India and what is the penal punishment for sedition in India.
4. Michael T Davis. “Prosecution and radical discourse during 1790s: The case of the
Scottish sedition trials". This article focuses on how sedition trials take place in Scotland
in 1790 and how these prosecutions were exploited by the radicals as a means for their
political expression. At those days the courtroom emerged as place for political discourse
and further this article provides us with the knowledge on how radical challenged the
dominant discursive and performative elements of trail.
5. Vladimir Kozlov, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Sergei Mironenko. “Sedition” (2011). These articles
publish selected and previously inaccessible documents from former Soviet state. These
articles focus on the historical importance or their general value in deepening their
understanding and also facilitating to her understanding of Soviet nation. This also
focuses on everyday resistance in Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
6. Ravinder Kumar, Divya Puri. “Sedition laws: Freedom Fetters.” VIDHIGYA: The
general of Legal Awareness 12 (1), 42-53, 2017. In this article the author focuses on the
relation
 B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM : -

In the present times Sedition law is the main instrument in the hands of the ruling government to
violate the human rights as well as right to freedom of speech and expression as well as
individual liberty of a person. The court under these cases have acted as a shield to protect the
rights of its citizen. But judiciary have been protecting the right of its citizen only during the trail
phase but the citizens are continuously booked under section 124-A of IPC. Artists are finding it
difficult to "tell stories" and the government is using sedition law and UAPA provisions

indiscriminately.y.4

C. HYPOTHESIS: -

The government is to a wide extent misusing Sedition law which suppressing citizens right of
speech and expression and human rights associated with freedom of speech and expression of
person. The right to dissent is one of the most important rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
As long as a person does not break the law or encourage strife, he has a right to differ from every
other citizen and those in power and propagate what he believes is his belief. But by the
continuous use of Sedition law a person cannot properly shows their lawful dissent towards
government or any government schemes.

D. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

This research is doctrinal research. The main source of my information for preparing this paper is
secondary in nature. This study is not empirical in nature. Decided cases, magazines,
newspapers, articles, interviews, scholarly articles are the sources on which my research paper is
based.

II. DEVELOPMENT REGARDING SEDITION LAW IN INDIA: -

A. SEDITION:- DEFINED

Encyclopedia Britannica defines sedition as, crime against the state. The word Sedition is no
where used in theory of section 124-A of Indian Penal Code or in any theory of defense rule of
India. The word sedition is used only in the marginal note of section 124-A of IPC. KENNY ha
4
available at: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sedition-terror-charges-distributed-like-prashad-says-swara-
bhaskar-2633213 visited on 8.12.2021.
defined sedition laws as- “the Law of Sedition relates to the uttering of the seditious words, the
publication of seditious libels, and conspiracies to do an act for the furtherance of a seditious
intention”.5

Section 124-A in The Indian Penal Code states -

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, 102 [***] the Government established by law in 103 [India],
104
[***] 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.
Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3.—
Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government
without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an
offence under this section.]6

Any written or spoken word etc. which has the power of subverting the Government by any
violent means which are included under the term ‘revolution’ have been made penal under IPC.
But if the strong words used under lawful means to express disapprobation towards the
government or the measures of the Government with a view to improvement or alteration would
not come within this section. Further, comments though strongly worded, expressing
disapprobation of action of the government without exciting feeling which causes public disorder
by acts of violence would again not be penal. It can be easily understood that disloyalty to
Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon
measures of Government, or its agencies etc. Without exciting those feelings of enmity and
disloyalty which implies excitation to public disorder or the use of violence.7

B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: -

5
available at: http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/webj/sedition.pdf visited on 8.12.2021.
6
available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641007/.visited on 8.12.2021.
7
available at: http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/webj/sedition.pdf visited on 8.12.2021
India was under the rule of East India company for almost 200 years. Hence majority of laws
prevalent in India are the gift which we have received from the britishers thus edition law in
India is also the work of British are accepted in India initially sedition was not part of initial
Penal Code of 1860, but after Lord Macaulay Draft of 1837 which contained the detailed
production vision of sedition was inserted as an offense under section 124-A to suppress the
rebel against British rule in India. After the indictment of section 124-A how five PC, the law of
sedition is used not just to suppress the voice of revolutionary but is also used to suppress the
voices of those who had made certain criticism against government or any policies undertaken by
them .The criticism made in good faith is also considered to be Sedition.8

The first sedition case was filled in thev year 1892, Queen v. Jogender Chunder Bose9 that
defendant was the editor of Bengali newspaper, he has published an article which according to
the government has a capacity of spreading disaffection and disapprobation against the
government. It was held that "If a person uses either spoken or written words calculated to
create in the minds of the persons to whom they are addressed a disposition not to obey the
lawful authority of the Government, or to subvert or resist that authority, if and when occasion
should arise, and if he does so with the intention of creating such a disposition in his hearers or
readers, he will be guilty of the offence of attempting to excite disaffection within the meaning
of the section, though no disturbance is brought about by his words or any feeling of disaffection,
in fact, produced by them. It is sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used are
calculated to excite feelings of ill-will against the Government and to hold it up to the hatred and
contempt of the people, and that they were used with the intention to create such feeling.” 10

Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak11. in this very case cities in charges were levied
against Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He had published an article on the coronation of Chatrapati Shivaji
Maharaj festival” and during which several speeches were patriotic. It was that the coronation
ceremony move ship was a festival embracing in except the concept of swaraj well so it was seen
that when she was defeated and killed Afzal khan he gave the swaraj Speech. Hence it was
alleged by the British officials that this article resulting in killing of two British officers. After
8
available at: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/sedition-ipc-124a-article-19-1-a-of-the-indian-constitution-
independence-of-the-judiciary-178280#_ftn4 visited on 8.12.2021.
9
1 LR (1892) 19 Cal 35.
10
available at: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/sedition-ipc-124a-article-19-1-a-of-the-indian-constitution-
independence-of-the-judiciary-178280#_ftn4 visited on : 8.12.2021.
11
ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112.
this Bal Gangadhar Tilak was punished with 18 months of rigorous imprisonment12 The 1898
amendment to Indian penal Code was due to this case only.

Other cases such as Queen-Empress v. Ramchandra Narayan13 and Amba Prasad in these
cases there have been time and again interpretation of the terms “disaffection “ and
disapprobation. this affection does not work insert full set of affection whereas on again
hand it can also mean absenteeism all perfection. Whereas in other cases Niharendu Dutt
Majumdar v. King - Emperor emperor the federal court overturned the lower court
conviction of narindar dot majumder. It was held in this case the mere presence of
violent words does not make a speech or publication seditious rather the acts or words
complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable
men that is their intention or tendency. 14

Post constitutional Development :

Sedation was not considered as a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression by the
framers of the constitution. In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras The section 124-A of IPC
came up for consideration. It was declared by the Supreme Court in this case that unless
“freedom of speech and expression” threatens the security of state or tends to overthrow the
government any law imposing restriction would not fall within the purview of article 19(2) of the
constitution.

In Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State The Punjab High Court declared section 124-A of IPC
as unconstitutional as it contravenes the right of freedom of speech and expression under article
19 (1)(a).

By the First Amendment two additional restriction were included within the purview of article
19(2) of the constitution after Rome Rome meshed uppercase which include following ground as
a threat to national security and for serious ‗serious aggravated forms of public disorder that

12
available at: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/sedition-ipc-124a-article-19-1-a-of-the-indian-constitution-
independence-of-the-judiciary-178280#_ftn6
13
(1931) 33 BOMLR 1169
14
Sedition on India: A comparative study proposing abolition of the colonial
law" , by Rakesh Sahoo & Shivani Kapoor
endanger national security . Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru while introducing the first constitutional
amendment built 1951 stated as follows:

“Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and
it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws
that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better. We might deal with that matter in other
ways, in more limited ways, as every other country does but that particular thing, as it is, should
have no place, because all of us has enough experience of it in variety of ways apart from the
logic of the situation”.15

The constitutional validity of section 124 of IPC was challenged in Kedar Nath Singh v. State
of Bihar16 That's Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 124A and development
on a different pedestal. the quote separated between these two terms the Government established
by law and the person for the time being engaged carrying o on the administration. At the same
time code struck a balance between two free Speech and expression in the end the power of the
legislature to restrict these right when needed.

In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar it was held in this case in order to constitute an offence
of conspiracy and sedition it is not necessary that accuse himself should be the author of
seditious material.

In Common Cause & Anr v. Union of India I was made to the court to issue direction for
reviewing the pending cases of sedition in various codes, where the superior officer has to certify
that the seditious act either led to incitement of violence or had the tendency to create public
disorder the quote granted the prayer and directed the authorities dealing with section 124 a IPC
and to be guided by the guidelines in Kedarnath judgements.

In the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 74 the petitioner, charged under section
124A IPC approached Delhi High Court for grant of bail. Deciding upon the issue, the Court
observed that while exercising the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution, one has to remember that Part-IV Article 51A of the Constitution
provides Fundamental Duties of every citizen, which forms the other side of the same coin.17

15

16

17
available at: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/CP-on-Sedition.pdf visite on :9.12.2021.
 C. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SEDITION:-

Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees right two freedom of speech and expression but
there are certain reasonable restrictions under article 19(2) of the constitution on the freedom of
speech and expression. These reasonable restrictions are which can be imposed by this state in
the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relation with the
foreign state, public orders, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation
or incitement tool and offenses. Section 124 a of IPC is justified by article 19 (2) as a tool to
safeguard the sovereignty integrity of India and security of this state. This section 124 a is
provided as a tool in the hand of government to maintain a public order and for properly running
a democratic government. In the democratic country like India stable running government is very
essential. But the long history of judicial battle have shown are altogether different story. In the
old colonial time it was used by the British are to suppress the revolutionary activities by the
freedom fighter the present government are no different from the British. They are using these
laws for infringing right of freedom of speech and expression rather than becoming the savior
and protector of fundamental right of their citizens. How section 124 a of IPC's misused by these
government is briefly discussed by me in my seminar paper further.

D. UDHR PROVISION: -

The the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948 provides various rights to cities and all over
the world and promises to all economic, social, political, cultural and civil rights that underpin in
a life free from want and fear. The freedom of speech and expression is the first and foremost
human right the first condition of liberty, mother of all liberties, as it makes the life meaningful.
The UDHR,1948 in its preamble and article 19 declare freedom of speech as the basic right.18

Preamble of UDHR states “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in
which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want
has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,”and Article 19 of UDHR
states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom

18
available at: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/CP-on-Sedition.pdf
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of any frontiers”.19

Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ,1966 (ICCPR) states
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,
in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.20

ARTICLE 9. of African charter on Human Rights and peoples rights Every individual
shall have the right to receive information. Every individual shall have the right to
express and disseminate his opinions within the law. 21

E. DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES: -

UNITED KINGDOM:

The history os Sedition can be traced back to the statute of Westminster 1275 whe the king was
consider to be the holder od divine rights.22 In United Kingdom to prove the commission of the
libel not only the truth of the statement but the intention is also considered important. De Libellis

19
available at: https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf 9.12.2021.
20
available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29946.pdf
21
available at: https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49
22
See English PEN, A Briefing on the abolition of seditious libel and criminal libel (2009).
Famosis this is the earliest cases wherein ‘ seditious libel’ whether true or false was made
punishable . The United Kingdom Law commission while examining the need for sedition law
in the modern democracy remarked in its paper- Apart from the consideration that there is likely
to be a sufficient range of other offences covering conduct amounting to sedition, we think that it
is better in principle to rely on these ordinary statutory and common law offences than to have
resort to an offence which has the implication that the conduct in question is ‗political‘. Our
provisional view, therefore, is that there is no need for an offence of sedition in the criminal
code.23 after the remark of Law Commission this marked the beginning of abolition of sedition
law. After the enactment of Human Rights Act, 1998 and your own rights these all conventions
all convention paved a path for the pollution of sedition as an offense in 2009 in United
Kingdom parliament.24

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: -

Sedition was made punishable in united state of America through this edition act of 1798.
Section 225 of sedition act provides us with the definition of sedition. This act was repealed in
1820. In 1918 to protect American interest in the First World War the sedition act was again
enacted by EU S Congress. The validity of sedition act 1918 was questioned in Schenck v.
United States26 the court laid down clear and present danger test for restriction of freedom
of speech in this case full show sedation was also brought as an offense under the alien
registration at 1940 (SmithAct) which penalize violent overthrow of the government. The
US constitution though forbids apparent rest on Speech but there have been various
doctrines that are practiced to insert hit speech. Hence it class it can be concluded that
some of the laws and sedition have been repealed and some are made inoperative. court
now provides delete interpretation of free speech and expression.27

AUSTRALIA:

23
available at: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/CP-on-Sedition.pdf visited on.9.12.2021
24
available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/law-sedition-freedom-expression-interplay-navin-kumar-jaggi
25
Section 2 of Sedtion Act,1798 states To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any
false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress,
or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the
hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the
government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
26
249 U.S. 47 (1919)
27
available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/law-sedition-freedom-expression-interplay-navin-kumar-jaggi
The first legislation in Australia containing sedition as an offense was the crime act 1920. The
provision of this was very broad as they do not include subjective intention and enticement to
violence or public disturbance under this conviction. Hope Commission in 1984 recommended
thus this definition should be reviewed again. In 1991 Gibbs committee reviewed the sedition
provision. It was held after this review that the offence of sedition should be retained and
conviction should be limited to the act that incite violence for the purpose of overthrowing the
constitutional authority. The Australian law reform Commission(ALRC) reviewed again whether
the sedition term is to be used or not and after ALRC recommendation , The national security
legislation amendment at 2010 remove the terms sedition with urging violence offenses.

III.MISUSE OF SEDITION LAWS AT THE STAKE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH: -

Every person has its own rules and work period of time when people stick to these old rules in
convention society does not progress but stick at one place. With the evolution of time new
thinkers are born and they disagree with the well accepted norms of the society. If every person
except these old age rules, then no new rules or path will be formed and no new path will be
found if no person raised question on these age old system there are no system will be formed
and the horizone of mind will not expand. If Buddha Mahavira, Guru Nanak dev, Martin Luther,
Kabir Swami Dayanand Saraswathi, Rajaram Mohan Roy etc would not have raised question
then no new thoughts and religious practices would have been established. Thus it can be easily
concluded that whether one is a believer, or an aesthetic everybody has a complete freedom of
belief and concise under our constitution.28

But the present scenario has changed a lot. Free India has used a series of law to control the
freedom of those who have spoken against the policy of this state the most frequent use tool are
unlawful activities (preventive) act (UAPA) and Armed force (special power) act (AFSPA) and
both these tools use a basic argument of “we versus them”. But among all the worst is equal
colonial provision of section 124 a which is extensively used and it can make a loyal Indian anti-
national by this stroke of a dishonest policeman pen in an FIR. 29 This section 124-A is
extensively used in India some recent years. I will be justifying my point by presenting certain
statics available to to me during my research on my paper. 326 sedition cases filed in India from
28
available at: https://theprint.in/opinion/heres-the-text-of-justice-deepak-guptas-speech-on-sedition-law-being-
abused-and-misused/288439/ visited on 10.12.2021.
29
available at: https://thewire.in/rights/sedition-law-democracy-rights-repeal-misuse visited on –10.12.2021.
2014 to 2019; only 6 convicted: Govt data.30 Assam topped the list with 54 cases, while
Jharkhand and Haryana reported 40 and 31 cases respectively, according to data shared by the
Union home ministry.31 The new database showed that six sedition cases were filed during the
ongoing farmers’ agitation, 22 after the Hathras gangrape, 25 amid protests against the
Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 and 27 after the Pulwama terror attack. Those charged with
sedition included Opposition leaders, students, journalists, academics and authors.32

Twenty-two of the sedition cases related to the anti-CAA protests were registered in BJP-ruled
states. In the case of Pulwama attack, 26 of the 27 sedition cases were also filed in states where
the saffron party was in power.33

30
available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/326-sedition-cases-filed-in-india-from-2014-to-2019-
only-6-convicted-govt-data-101626609219246.html visited on 10.12.2021
31
Ibid.
32
available at: https://scroll.in/latest/985724/96-sedition-cases-filed-against-405-people-after-bjps-2014-victory-
shows-new-article-14-database visited on 10.12.2021.
33
Ibid.