INTRODUCTION:

When we talk about the history of the sedition law, it is linked to the
Indian freedom movement. Following the Indian Independence
Revolt of 1857, the first attempt was made to codify the criminal law
in its current form. As a result, the Indian Penal Code was
introduced in 1860, based on the recommendations of the 1st
Law Commission, which was headed by Lord Macaulay and was
established in 1860. There was no mention of Section 124A of the
IPC (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which dealt with the sedition
law in the IPC. Sedition was first introduced in 1870 as an offence
under Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code which is related to the
offences against the state. The first trial of sedition was conducted
in the case of the Queen v. Jogendra Chandra Bose (1891) of
the Bangabasi case. There has been a long-running debate about
the misuse of Section 124A, and whether or not this provision should
be declared unconstitutional, which has been going on for a long
time.

About Sedition Law in India

Sedition law in India is a legal provision that deals with actions or

speech that are considered to be against the country's government.
The law is intended to maintain public order and protect the
integrity and sovereignty of the nation. The law is primarily aimed at
preventing acts that can lead to violence or pose a threat to the
security and harmony of the nation.

History of Sedition Law in India

o The sedition law was initially formulated in 1837 by Thomas

Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but was inexplicably
suppressed when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was adopted in
1860.
o Section 124A was added in 1870 by an amendment instituted
by Sir James Stephen when a separate section to deal with the
violation was felt necessary. It was one of the many stringent
laws adopted to suppress any voices of disagreement at that
time.
 o In the 19th and 20th centuries, the sedition law in India was
utilized mainly to suppress the writings and talks of notable
Indian nationalists and freedom fighters.
o The first known occasion of the application of the law was the
trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891.
o Other significant examples of the application of the law
comprise the trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, and Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar.

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.

o It specifies that the act of sedition refers to bringing hatred or

contempt against the government constituted by law in India.
o In this case, the punishment may be imprisonment for life and
financial penalty, or imprisonment for 3 years and financial
penalty.
o It was actually created to stop the freedom struggle prevalent
then.
o In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the law was primarily
used against Indian political leaders seeking freedom from
British rule.
o Britishers famously utilized the clause in three different,
successful trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and, after that, in
prosecuting Mahatma Gandhi in 1922.
o Mahatma Gandhi, who was booked under sedition, famously
said the law was “devised to suppress the freedom of the
citizen”.
o In 1962, the Supreme Court levied restrictions on the usage of
the law, making incitement to brutality a required condition.

Importance of Sedition Law in India

o Section 124A of the IPC has its usefulness in combating anti-

national, secessionist, and terrorist elements.
o It safeguards the elected administration from attempts to
overthrow it with brutality and unlawful means. The sustained
 existence of the administration constituted by law is a primary
condition for the stability of the State.
o If contempt of court urges penal action, contempt of
government must also attract a penalty.
o Many districts in several states face a Maoist insurgency, and
rebel groups almost run a parallel administration. These
groups frankly advocate the overthrow of the state
government by revolution. Against this backdrop, the
elimination of Section 124A would be ill-advised just because it
has been incorrectly invoked in some extremely publicized
cases.

Misuse of Sedition Law in India

o In 2018, the Delhi Police lodged a charge sheet against 10

people, including student leaders, in a sedition case for
reportedly raising “anti-national slogans” during an incident in
the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus in February
2016.
o In addition to this, as many as 12 students of the Aligarh
Muslim University, including the university’s students’ union
chief, were recently booked under sedition charges after an
ABVP member complained of the alleged attack.
o On another occasion where an Assamese scholar and two
others were slapped with sedition charges for comments made
against the envisaged citizenship law.

The Law Commission Report on Sedition

o In a previous report of 1968, the Law Commission had denied

the notion of repealing the section.
o After that, in 1971, the committee wanted the scope of the
section to be broadened.
o It called for covering the Constitution, the legislature, and the
Judiciary within the scope of the law, in addition to just
‘government,’ since the discontent against any of these
institutions is unacceptable.
o The only dilution the commission desired was to alter the
broad gap between the two jail terms stipulated (either 3 years
or life). It called for fixing the highest sanction at 7 years of
stringent imprisonment with a financial penalty.
o In August 2018, the Law Commission of India published a
consultation paper implying that it is time to re-think or repeal
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that deals with sedition.
The Law Commission had recommended invoking 124A just to
criminalize acts committed with the intent of disrupting public
 order or overthrowing the Government by way of violence and
unlawful methods.
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.

Sedition and its constitutional validity

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kishorechandra
Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021), that would discuss the
validity of Section 124A, which criminalizes sedition. In connection
with posts and cartoons that were posted on social media platforms,
two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal
Shukla have been accused of committing sedition in India. They
have filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of
Section 124A, which criminalizes and punishes sedition.
Section 124A is useful in the fight against anti-national, separatist,
and terrorist factors, among others. It defends the elected
government against attempts to destroy it through the use of violent
acts and illegal methods. Maintaining the legitimacy of the
government established by law is a necessary condition for the
cohesion of a state. If contempt of court results in criminal
prosecution, then contempt of government should result in criminal
prosecution as well.
Following independence, Section 124A has faced criticism on
numerous occasions, with the argument that it restricts our
“freedom of expression“. So-called “tyrannical” remains of colonial
rule have been questioned by many in an India that is secular and
independent, and where democratic principles are upheld. As a
result, critics have asserted that this legislation of the Indian Penal
Code is an infringement of the country’s Constitution. It was decided
in a landmark judgment of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (1962), that
Section 124A was constitutionally valid.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

 In this case, It was determined that the law was

constitutional and that it applied to any written or spoken
words that had the affirmative intention of circumventing
the government through violent means, regardless of their
source.
 Citizens who condemn the government with the aim of
creating public disorder are permitted to do so, so long as
they do not incite people to engage in violence against the
government.
 While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
Section 124A, it limited its application to acts involving the
intent or inclination to create public disorder, disruption of
law and order, or provocation of violence among other
things.
 As the Court pointed out, the essence of the crime of
“sedition” is the incitement to violence or the inclination or
the intention to cause public disorder through words spoken
or in a written form that has the potential or the impact of
inciting hatred or contempt for the government established
by law, or of causing disaffection in the sense of distrust to
the state.

The Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak

The instances of our country’s freedom fighters fighting against
colonial rule are among the most well-known examples of sedition in
history. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a courageous supporter of India’s
independence, was accused of committing sedition on two separate
occasions. It was awarded for the first time in 1897 for speeches
that supposedly incited other people to engage in violent behavior,
resulting in the deaths of two British officers. In 1898, he was found
guilty and granted bail, and in 1909, he was brought to trial for
seditious writing in his newspaper Kesari, which he owned at the
time.
The year 1897 marked the first time that Section 124 A was defined
and applied. The incitement to violence and uprising was irrelevant
in the eyes of the ruling Privy Council when it came to determining
the blame of a person who had been charged with sedition,
according to the court. This case served as an example of how to
interpret the term “Disaffection”. Disaffection towards the
government includes feelings of hatred, disagreement, enmity,
disrespect, and every other form of ill will toward the government.
Dr. Binayak Sen v. State of Chattisgarh
At the Session’s Court in Raipur, Dr. Binayak Sen was found guilty of
sedition for his involvement with the Naxalites, and he was
imprisoned for life imprisonment. A charge was brought against him
for allegedly assisting active Naxalites by sending texts from one
prisoner to another outside the jail. He claims that he was always
under the oversight of a prison official and doing something like that
was not an option; rather, it was his criticism of Salwa Judum’s role
in their fatalities that brought him to this point. It was explained to
me that the state government was supporting this group in their
efforts to clear village land and mine for diamonds, bauxite, and iron
ore from it.

Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab

In this case, following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi, the accused chanted the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad” in
front of a movie theatre. Two people carelessly raising slogans could
not be considered to be inciting dissatisfaction with the government,
according to the court’s conclusion. Because of the facts of this
case, Section 124A would not apply.

Aseem Trivedi v. the State of Maharashtra

Aseem Trivedi, a sensational political cartoonist and activist famed
for his anti-corruption campaign and cartoons against corruption,
was prosecuted on charges of sedition in 2010. He was released on
bail the following year. In the complaint, filed by Amit Katarnayea, a
legal advisor for a Mumbai-based NGO, Trivedi is accused of
displaying ‘insulting and derogatory’ sketches, including one that
portrayed the Parliament as an outhouse and another that portrayed
the National Emblem in a poor context by replacing the lions with
wild beasts, at the activism against corruption organized by Anna
Hazare, and then uploading them to social networking sites.

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”
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
This case has a significant impact on the Indian law system because
it questioned the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, and ultimately succeeded in having it
repealed because it was found to be in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution. Two teenage girls were detained by the
Mumbai Police for conveying their dissatisfaction with a protest
called by the Shiv Sena following the death of Bal Thackery by
uploading comments on Facebook. Shreya Singhal, a law student at
the time, filed a petition in 2012 to amend Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, claiming that it violates Article
19(1) of the Constitution of India. After three years of litigation, the
case was finally resolved in 2015 with a distinction made between
“advocacy” and “incitement,” with only incitement being punishable
under the law. According to the court, no one can be prosecuted for
sedition unless they have a direct connection to the commission of
violence or the instigation of public disorder.

Kanhaiya Kumar v. the State of Delhi

The Delhi Police detained Kanhaiya Kumar on February 12, 2016, for
violating Sections 124A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He was
accused of violating the country’s dignity by yelling slogans that
were derogatory to the country’s dignity at an event organized by
JNU students in commemoration of the hanging of Afzal Guru.
Kanhaiya Kumar denied all of the accusations and stated that he did
not say anything which is seditious. His detention sparked a political
uproar between left-wingers and right-wingers in the United States.
The University conducted an investigation into the incident and took
disciplinary action against the individuals involved, as well as
levying an Rs. 10,000 fine on Kumar. In a subsequent ruling, the
Delhi High Court struck down the fine, declaring the committee’s
decision to be “illegal, infrequent, and unreasonable.” The arrest
triggered a strike that rendered the university’s administration
unable to function.

Conclusion
As the world’s biggest democracy, India recognizes the importance
of the right to free expression and speech as a fundamental
component of democracy. It should not be assumed that sedition is
committed when someone expresses or thinks something that is in
opposition to the government’s policy. It is correct that the Law
Commission stated that “an expression of dissatisfaction with the
current state of affairs cannot be regarded as sedition.” When it
comes to accepting constructive condemnation there isn’t much of a
difference between the pre and post-Independence periods in this
country.
It goes without saying that maintaining national integrity is
indispensable. Depending upon the legal opinion and the
government’s support for the law, it is unusual that Section 124A
will be repealed anytime soon. The Section should not, however, be
abused as a weapon to stifle freedom of expression.
Sedition is, without a doubt, a contentious concept, and it must be
balanced delicately against our constitutionally protected right to
freedom of expression. While no citizen should be permitted to incite
unneeded hatred among the populace or to incite hatred and
violence against the government (especially in a nation founded on
the principles of non-violence), every citizen should be permitted to
express their opinions about the government in a free and open
manner. In some cases, the viewpoint given by Indian courts and
how the law is implemented are at odds, leading some to describe
the law as “draconian” in its application. In an era in which citizens
are becoming more and more aware of their rights and individual
liberty, as well as a growing sense of responsibility and duty in this
democratic system, it may be the ideal time to consider reforming
this law.
Sedition is the most serious offence that can be committed in
violation of Article 19. Consequently, sedition laws must explicitly
contain language that complies with the restrictions of Article 19(2).
The objective of limiting freedom of speech under sedition is to
ensure the safety of the nation’s citizens. The Supreme Court’s
guidelines for interpreting and applying sedition laws should be
enforced by law.

Way Forward

o The Constituent Assembly of India opposed the inclusion of

sedition as a constraint on freedom of speech and expression.
o The constitution makers had seen the sedition provision as a
shadow of the colonial way of thinking that must not exist in
free India. However, it is sustained under section 124A of the
IPC.
o The report of the Law Commission stated that:
o In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a
criterion of patriotism.
 o People must be permitted to exhibit their love towards
their nation in their own way.
o A democracy requires constructive criticism or debates,
pointing out the loopholes in the strategies of the
Government is substantial for the existence of a
democratic nation.
o Expressions utilized to criticize the government might be
rough and disagreeable to some, but that does not cause
the actions to be labeled seditious.
o The Law Commission has suggested that the sedition law
below section 124A must be invoked only in cases where
the purpose behind any act is to disrupt public order or to
overthrow the administration with brutality and illegal
means.
o The Law Commission recommends that section 124A of
IPC (sedition) must persist; however, it must be examined
whether the term ‘sedition’ could be replaced
appropriately with another.
o In many instances, the Supreme Court had underlined that the
expression of opinions different from the opinion of the
administration cannot be called seditious.
o The need of the hour is to find a balance between sedition and
the right to freedom of speech and set up safeguards against
improper use of the sedition charge.