Sedition Law in India - What is Section 124A of IPC?

History of Sedition Law in India

1. 1837 - Thomas Macaulay (Famous for his Macaulay Minute on Indian Education 1835) drafted the
Penal Code in 1837. o Sedition was placed in the Penal Code 1837 as Section 113. o Later, it was
omitted, to only be readded in 1870 back in the Penal Code by an amendment introduced by Sir
James Stephen. o British Raj in India had introduced this section on sedition under the title "Exciting
Disaffection".

2. IPC Amendment Act of 1898 - It made amendments to the changes brought through the Penal
Code in 1870. o The current Section 124A is said to be similar to the amendments made to it in 1898
with few omissions made in 1937, 1948, 1950, and by Part B States (Law) Act, 1951. Section 124A of
IPC - Sedition The IPC Section 124 A says, “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.

What is Disaffection towards Government? Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of
enmity. What does not constitute an offence under Sedition?

• When comments disapprove of government measures but with a view to alter them lawfully i.e.
‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtaining
their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection.’

• When comments disapprove of government’s administrative actions without exciting all feelings of
enmity - Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.

Punishment for the Sedition Offence

1. It is a non-bailable offence.

2. Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.

3. The person found guilty of this offence is not eligible for any government job.

Cases Related to Sedition Law in India Pre-Independence

1. Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891) o Jugendra Bose wrote an article criticizing the
Age of Consent Act, 1891. o His criticism was taken as disobedience towards the government. o
However, later the case was dropped after he was released on bail.

2. Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1897) o Bal Gangadhar Tilak has published the reports of the
celebration followed by an 1894 paper on the Maratha king Shivaji by Professor R. P. Karkaria.
Karkaria presented his paper to Bombay's Royal Asiatic Society in 1894. This paper led to the annual
celebration of the Shivaji Coronation. Later, Tilak published the celebrations' reports. o Tilak
reported these celebrations as "Shivaji's Utterances" in his dailies - Kesari and Mahratta. o The case
was presided by Justice Arthur Strachey. o This sedition trial is historically famous as in this case, an
attempt to excite feelings of enmity against the government was also brought under the scope of
Section 124A terming it is seditious. Hence, it widened the understanding of Section 124A. o Tilak
was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.

3. Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1908) o Tilak published two Kesari articles, titled "The Country's
Misfortune" which he published on 12th May 1908 and "These Remedies Are Not Lasting" which was
published on 9th June 1908. o Under the newly drafted Section 124A, he was sentenced to six years
of imprisonment in Burma (Now, Myanmar).

4. Sedition Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922) o Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years for his
articles in his newspaper, 'Young India'. o The charges imposed on him were - “Bringing or
attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government established by law in British
India" o Mahatma Gandhi termed Section 124A as “Prince among the political sections of the Indian
Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”

Post-Independence - Supreme Court Decisions

1. Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950) & Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras
(1950)

1. The apex court held that a law that restricts speech on the ground that it would disturb public
order was unconstitutional.

2. The decision of the court prompted the ‘First Constitution Amendment’, where Article 19 (2) was
rewritten to replace “undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public order”

2. Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)

1. The constitutional validity of Section 124A was put to a test in this case.

2. A member of a Forward Bloc had given a speech which was charged as sedition.

3. The Supreme Court held: “Speech or writing to which “subverting the government by violent
means” is implicit—including the notion of “revolution”—is seditious.” A failed attempt to incite too
is counted as sedition. It was seditious to create public disorder.

4. No “unreasonable distinction” between criticism of the government’s measures and criticism of

3. Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1962)

1. Balwant Singh who was the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) in Punjab, Chandigarh among
other two, was alleged to have shouted pro-Khalistan slogans on the day of former PM Indira
Gandhi’s assassination.

2. The apex court held that unless there is public disorder merely sloganeering can’t attract
punishment under Section 124A.

Why can Sedition Law be important?

1. The law keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements that can hamper the
public order and incite violence and induce enmity.

2. It helps in the stability of the elected government which could otherwise be attempted to be
thrown out using illegal and violent means.
3. It is an alignment with contempt of court. Elected Government is an important part of the
executive. Hence, contempt of the government can be checked.

Arguments Against the Sedition Law

1. As the seeds of sedition law were sown in colonial times, it is often described as a draconian law
that can be used against what is otherwise is constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression

2. It has an ill effect on constructive criticism. As noted by the Supreme Court, views that are
different from the government’s don’t mean seditious. Therefore, sedition laws can demotivate legal
and lawful criticism.

3. Britain had repealed the Sedition Act in 2009, hence India should too be long done with this.

4. To penalize the offender for disrupting public order, IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
2019 have provisions that can take care of the punishments.

5. India’s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979 should
be seen as a right step towards acknowledging freedom of expression. Hence, with Sedition Law in
activity, could lead to the wrong use of the law where people are charged with offence arbitrability
for expressing their opinions.

ANTHITHETICAL TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

the sedition law. A democracy requires citizens to actively participate in debates and express their

constructive criticisms of government policies. However, the sedition laws have empowered the

executive branch of the government to use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to

regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power. The sedition law has become a tool to

instill a sense of compliance towards government policies in the citizens. There have been many

instances where the government has used the sedition law to suppress protesting voices to protect

its interests. The arrests of the NDTV journalist Vinod Dua  for criticising the government’s

response to COVID-19 and the 22-year-old Disha Ravi in the Greta Thunberg toolkit  case for

tweeting in solidarity with the farmer’s agitation in India has raised many questions about freedom

of speech and expression in India. When journalists are censored through the sedition law, it

impacts democracy. The sedition laws reduce government accountability as the government is able

to ignore its critics and in turn charge them with sedition.

The sedition laws have empowered the executive branch of the government to use the

ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately

wield power.
Yet, what is more concerning is once arrested under the sedition law, it is extremely difficult to get

bails as the trial process can be stretched for long. This leads to harassment of innocent people and

induces a fear in others to speak against the government. The cases of the Kashmiri students  in

Hubli is an example of the difficulty of getting bail in a sedition case as they got default bail after

100 days of police custody.

To conclude, sedition laws and their growing misuse by governments of all stripes (including

opposition-ruled states) are a matter of serious concern. Personal liberty and the right to free speech

are hallmarks of liberal democracy and sedition laws and their gross misuse attack the very

foundation of these liberties enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The need of the hour requires the

judiciary to review this draconian law. Even if abolishing this law may not be feasible, toning it

down and issuing strict guidelines to limit its indiscriminate use can definitely help India’s

democratic standing apart from safeguarding freedom of expression in the country.