Sedition Law in India – Explained Pointwise

Table of Content

What is Sedition? History of Sedition law in India Judicial interventions on Sedition law in India Arguments supporting the sedition law in India Arguments against the sedition law in India What should be the way forward?

What is Sedition?

• In India, Sedition used to fall under section 124A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).
• It was defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the Government of India. Sedition cases are punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It categorizes four sources of seditious acts: (a) Spoken words; (b) Written words; (c) Signs; (d) Visible representations.
• Sedition cases were punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
• It was classified as “cognizable”(No need of Court warrant to arrest the person) and a “non-bailable” and “non-compoundable” offence (In a compoundable offence, charges against the accused can withdrawn).
• A person charged under this provision can’t apply for a government job.
• She/he had to live without their passport. Apart from that, they must present themselves in court as and when required.
• In 2023, the IPC was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While the new BNS has technically replaced the IPC and omitted the word “sedition,” the substance remains under Section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India).

History of Sedition law in India:

• Sedition law was first enacted in 17th century England. Later it was inserted into IPC in 1870.
• The section was introduced initially to deal with increasing Wahabi activities between 1863 and 1870. These activities posed a challenge to the colonial government.
• Some of the most famous sedition trials of the late 19th and early 20th century involved Indian nationalist leaders:
  • The first among them was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891. He was the editor of the newspaper, Bangobasi. He wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Bill for posing a threat to the religion and for its coercive relationship with Indians.
  • It was also used to prosecute Bal Gangadhar Tilak (for his writings in Kesari) in 1897.
  • The other well-known case was the sedition trial of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. Gandhi had called Sedition “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

Judicial interventions on Sedition law in India:

1. In 1951, the Punjab High Court had ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962:
   • The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that this power was required by the state to protect itself but narrowed its scope.
   • However, it said that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government by way of criticism or comment. A citizen can criticize the government to the extent it does not incite people into violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
3. P. Alavi vs State of Kerala,1982:
   • The Supreme Court held that sloganeering, criticizing of Parliament or Judicial setup does not amount to sedition unless there is a direct call to violence.
   • It reinforced that “anti-government sentiment” isn’t a crime.
4. Balwant Singh v State of Punjab,1995:
   • The Supreme Court acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”.
   • The court held that mere raising of slogans by two individuals alone cannot be said as sedition. Further, it is also not considered as an attempt aimed to excite hatred or disaffection against the government.
5. Sanskar Marathe v The State of Maharashtra, 2015:
   • In this case, the Bombay High Court issued certain guidelines Police officials must follow before filing a sedition case against anyone.
   • These guidelines include an objective evaluation of the seditious material. By evaluation, the police must form an opinion on whether the words and actions caused disaffection and disloyalty to the government.
6. Rajat Sharma v. The Union of India Case, 2021:
   • In this case, the court ruling said that disagreeing with the views and policies of the government will not attract the offence of sedition. So the provision of Sedition cannot be invoked to quiet the disquiet (criminalizing the critics).
7. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022):
   • The court effectively paused Section 124A. It ordered that no new FIRs be filed under the law and that all pending trials and proceedings be kept in abeyance while the Government of India re-examined the statute.
   • This paved the way for the legislative overhaul and the introduction of the BNS.

Arguments supporting the sedition law in India:

1. National Security: One of the strongest arguments is related to national security. Supporters contend that sedition laws are essential for safeguarding the country against individuals or groups that seek to undermine the state or promote anti-national sentiments.  It provides a mechanism to deal with secessionist movements, armed rebellion, and terrorism in sensitive regions (like Jammu & Kashmir or regions facing Left-Wing Extremism).
2. Preserving Public Order: The law is also defended on the basis of maintaining public order. By restricting speech that may incite violence or promote hatred against the state, it is argued that the overall social fabric is preserved.
3. Preventing Terrorism: In the context of modern geopolitical challenges, the sedition law is cited as a tool in the fight against terrorism. By deterring individuals from glorifying or advocating violence against the government, it aims to minimize terrorist ideologies from taking root.
4. Limitations on Freedom of Speech: Supporters assert that freedom of speech is not absolute; it comes with responsibilities. The law is viewed as a reasonable restriction to ensure that such freedoms do not endanger society.
5. Protecting the Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India: The new iteration of the law, Section 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, reframes the offence. It moves away from the colonial term “sedition” and instead criminalises acts that “endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. 

Arguments against the sedition law in India:

1. Chilling Effect on Free Speech: One of the most significant drawbacks of the sedition law is its chilling effect on free speech. Critics emphasize that the fear of sedition charges can deter individuals from voicing dissent or engaging in political criticism, which is essential for a vibrant democracy.
2. Ambiguity and Misuse: The law is often criticized for its ambiguous language, which can lead to arbitrary interpretations. This ambiguity allows authorities to misuse sedition charges against political rivals, activists, and journalists, leading to unjust detentions and prosecutions.
3. Contradiction to Democratic Values: Opponents argue that the sedition law fundamentally undermines core democratic values. A healthy democracy thrives on open discussions, debate, and dissent. Punishing individuals for expressing opposition to the government is seen as antithetical to these principle.
4. Ineffective in Preventing Violence: Critics assert that the sedition law is largely ineffective in addressing the complex factors that contribute to political violence. Instead of serving as a preventive measure, it often suppresses legitimate expressions of discontent without tackling the underlying issues.
5. Low Conviction Rate: National Crime Records Bureau data shows a surge in sedition cases over the last decade, yet the conviction rate remains extremely low (below 3%).
6. Colonial Legacy & Historical Injustice: Sedition was introduced by the British in 1870 specifically to suppress Indian nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Many advocate for its repeal, arguing that India should move beyond laws that were used to silence dissent during British rule.
7. Vague Terminology: Terms like “disaffection” (in the IPC) or “subversive activities” & “endangering sovereignty” (in the BNS) are very vague. This allows the state to categorize any inconvenient opinion as a threat to national security.
8. Existing Statutes: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA) already cover terrorism and secession.
9. Removal of the “Violence” Requirement: While the Kedar Nath judgment (1962) said sedition requires an incitement to violence, the new BNS language is broad enough to allow prosecution for “subversive activities” that don’t involve any physical harm.
10. Global Trends: Most modern democracies, including the United Kingdom (which originally introduced the law to India), have abolished sedition, arguing it has no place in a 21st-century republic. Similarly, in Australia also, following the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) the term sedition was removed and replaced with references to ‘urging violence offenses’.
11. Recommendation of Law commission: In 2018, the Law Commission of India questioned how far it is justified to retain Section 124A. It even suggested to re-think or repeal the Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

What should be the way forward?

1. Clear Definitions: Creating clearer definitions and parameters for what constitutes sedition can help minimize misuse. Specific criteria should be established to distinguish between legitimate dissent and actions that threaten national security. Thus, Section 152 of the BNS should be amended or judicially clarified to explicitly state that incitement to violence is a mandatory prerequisite for an offense. This prevents the law from being used against “peaceful dissent.”
2. Procedural Safeguards: To address the issue of “process as punishment”—arrests happen first, and acquittals come years later – implement the Law Commission’s (279th Report) recommendation:
   1. Preliminary Inquiry: A police officer of at least the rank of Inspector must conduct a preliminary probe to verify the “incitement to violence” before an FIR is filed.
   2. Prior Permission: Mandatory sanction from the Central or State Government should be required before initiating prosecution. 
3. Increased Judicial Oversight: Strengthening judicial oversight can serve as a check against arbitrary applications of the law. Courts should be empowered to rigorously evaluate sedition cases, ensuring that civil liberties are protected.
4. Strengthen Accountability and Deter Misuse: To deter the state and its agencies from filing motivated cases and to provide recourse for victims of such harassment award compensation to individuals who are maliciously prosecuted under the sedition law.
5. Focus on Root Causes: A proactive approach should involve focusing on the root causes of dissent. Addressing social, economic, and political grievances can help mitigate extreme sentiments, reducing the likelihood of sedition-related incidents.

Conclusion: Every irresponsible exercise of the right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious. While it is essential to protect national integrity, it should not be misused as a tool to curb free speech. Dissent and criticism are essential ingredients of a robust public debate on policy issues as part of a vibrant democracy. Therefore, every restriction on free speech and expression must be carefully scrutinized to avoid unwarranted restrictions.

UPSC GS-2: Polity Read More: The Hindu