Author: Shubhi Gupta, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida
ABSTRACT
Democracy thrives on dissent. It is the right to question, criticize, and protest that separates a democratic state from an authoritarian one. Despite India being a vibrant democracy, the ongoing presence and frequent misuse of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code—a remnant of colonial rule—continues to raise serious concerns about the strength and integrity of democratic values in the country. While the provision was originally enacted to suppress anti-colonial voices, its post-independence application often targets journalists, students, activists, and ordinary citizens who express dissent against the government. This article critically examines the legal underpinnings of sedition, the tensions it creates with fundamental rights—particularly Article 19(1)(a)—and the judicial responses that have shaped its interpretation. Through an analysis of key case law and recent developments, it seeks to answer the pressing question: Is the sedition law a constitutional necessity or an unconstitutional relic used to curb dissent?
TO THE POINT
India, being the world’s largest democracy, upholds the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of its Constitution. However, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced during British colonial rule in 1870, still remains in force and penalizes any speech or expression that incites “hatred,” “contempt,” or “disaffection” against the government. Punishable by life imprisonment, the provision was originally used to suppress Indian freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
Despite its colonial origins, the law persists in post-independence India, where it is increasingly invoked against journalists, students, activists, and political opponents. Sedition charges have been filed for peaceful protests, dissenting opinions, and even critical posts on social media.
This raises a serious constitutional concern: can a democratic republic that values dissent justify the use of a law meant to silence it?
The vague terms used in Section 124A—such as “disaffection” and “contempt”—grant excessive discretion to authorities, often leading to arbitrary arrests and harassment. While actual convictions are rare, the process itself becomes a form of punishment. In a functioning democracy, dissent and criticism of the government are essential components of public discourse and should not be conflated with anti-national sentiments. The continued misuse of this colonial law endangers civil liberties and undermines the core principles of India’s constitutional democracy.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Sedition involves actions or speech aimed at provoking resistance or rebellion against the authority of the State. In India, this offence is codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860.
Disaffection, hatred, and contempt are key elements of the offence, though these terms are undefined in the IPC, leading to wide interpretational latitude.
Reasonable restrictions are those that conform to Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits the State to curb the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) under specific grounds like sovereignty, public order, and morality.
Doctrine of Proportionality and Basic Structure Doctrine are constitutional principles used by courts to test the legality of restrictions imposed on fundamental rights.
THE PROOF
1. Section 124A IPC – The Sedition Clause
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code criminalises any expression—spoken, written, or symbolic—that attempts to bring into “hatred,” “contempt,” or “disaffection” against the government established by law. These terms are not clearly defined, making them vulnerable to broad interpretation. Critics argue that this vagueness leads to arbitrary applications of the law, often targeting journalists, students, and activists who challenge state actions.
2. Constitutional Safeguards – Article 19
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution grants every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is not absolute—Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the State, as well as to maintain public order, decency, and morality. The key legal concern is whether sedition qualifies as a “reasonable” restriction when used against peaceful dissent.
3. Doctrine of Proportionality
This principle, upheld in Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016), mandates that any restriction on a fundamental right must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the aim it seeks to achieve. The sedition law, when invoked against mere criticism without incitement to violence, fails this test.
4. Basic Structure Doctrine
As held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the freedom of expression forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated even through constitutional amendments. Therefore, any ordinary statute such as Section 124A IPC that infringes upon this right stands on shaky constitutional ground.
CASE LAWS
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955:
This is the seminal case interpreting Section 124A. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sedition but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder. The Court made it clear that even harsh or intense criticism of the government cannot be considered sedition unless it provokes or leads to violence or public disorder.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214:
The Court acquitted individuals who raised pro-Khalistan slogans, holding that casual raising of slogans without incitement to violence did not constitute sedition. This reinforced the limited interpretation of Section 124A established in the Kedar Nath Singh judgment.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1:
Although dealing with Section 66A of the IT Act, the Court laid down key principles about freedom of speech, emphasising that only speech causing incitement to violence or public disorder can be legitimately restricted. These principles are relevant for evaluating sedition cases.
4. Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2021) 10 SCC 1:
The Supreme Court quashed FIRs filed against journalist Vinod Dua under sedition and other provisions, reiterating that criticism of government policy without inciting violence or causing public disorder cannot attract Section 124A.
5. F.I.R. against Disha Ravi (2021):
Environmental activist Disha Ravi was charged with sedition for sharing a protest “toolkit” in support of the farmers’ movement. The case drew national and international criticism and was viewed as an example of sedition law being misused to target youth activists.
6. Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2020) 15 SCC 385:
While not a direct sedition case, it highlights the misuse of executive power under the guise of statutory provisions during the COVID-19 lockdown, drawing a parallel with how sedition is often similarly invoked in times of crisis or dissent.
ANALYSIS
In today’s democratic landscape, laws like sedition under Section 124A IPC exert a chilling effect on free speech. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens often self-censor for fear of legal consequences, even when expressing legitimate criticism. This atmosphere of fear undermines the democratic ethos, where open debate, dissent, and public accountability are not only permissible but essential.
Sedition law is increasingly being politically weaponized. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and civil liberties watchdogs show that while sedition charges are frequently filed, convictions are rare. This suggests that the law is often used not to address actual threats to national security, but to silence voices critical of the government. The mere filing of a case—even if ultimately dismissed—can lead to harassment, imprisonment, and reputational harm.
Moreover, the continued existence of sedition law is incompatible with modern democratic norms. Nations such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand, recognizing its oppressive history, have repealed their sedition statutes. For India, a constitutional democracy committed to liberal values and international human rights standards, retaining such a colonial-era provision contradicts its foundational principles. Repealing or reforming sedition law is not just a legal necessity—it is a democratic imperative.
CONCLUSION
The continued use of sedition law in India, despite its colonial roots and misuse, presents a direct threat to democratic values and civil liberties. While the Supreme Court has placed constitutional guardrails on its interpretation, the lack of enforcement oversight and the wide discretionary power of the police result in the frequent abuse of Section 124A. The law is often used not to punish real threats to the State but to silence critics, activists, students, and journalists.
In a democracy, the government must be held accountable by its citizens. Freedom of expression is not just a constitutional right but a necessary condition for democratic functioning. When citizens fear holding those in power accountable, the very essence of participatory democracy is undermined.
It is time for Parliament and the judiciary to seriously consider the relevance of sedition law in a modern constitutional democracy. Either it must be repealed, or it must be replaced with a narrowly tailored statute that only penalises speech that incites violence or poses an actual threat to national security.
FAQS
Q1. Does sedition continue to be punishable under Indian law?
Yes, under Section 124A of the IPC, sedition remains a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for life or with a fine, or both.
Q2. Has the Supreme Court invalidated the sedition law?
No, the Supreme Court has not struck down the sedition law. However, in the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh case, the Court upheld its validity but limited its application only to cases where the speech incites violence or poses a threat to public order. However, a constitutional bench is currently reconsidering its validity.
Q3. What kind of speech can attract sedition charges?
Only speech that incites violence or leads to public disorder can lawfully be punished under sedition. Mere criticism of the government is not sedition.
Q4. Is sedition law being misused in India?
Yes. Reports and case studies show that sedition charges are often filed against students, journalists, protestors, and activists without any evidence of incitement to violence.
Q5. What is the punishment under Section 124A?
It provides for imprisonment for life with or without a fine, or imprisonment up to three years.
Q6. Can sedition law be repealed?
Yes. Parliament has the power to repeal the provision. There is growing demand from civil society, jurists, and international bodies for its repeal.
Q7. How does sedition compare to other laws like UAPA?
While both target threats to the State, UAPA addresses terrorism and organised violence, whereas sedition focuses on speech. However, both laws have been criticised for misuse and vague definitions.
Q8. What are some international views on sedition law?
Many democratic countries like the UK and New Zealand have repealed sedition laws, considering them outdated and incompatible with free speech.
Q9. What reforms can be made if the law is retained?
If not repealed, the definition must be clearly narrowed, procedural safeguards must be added, and prior sanction for prosecution should be strictly enforced.
Q10. How can citizens safeguard their rights?
By being informed of their rights, seeking legal remedies when falsely accused, and supporting democratic institutions that uphold constitutional freedoms.
