Author: Ritika Singh, Sister Nivedita University
● TO THE POINT
In a vibrant democracy like India, freedom of speech and expression forms the core of civil liberties. It empowers citizens to critique governance, debate policies, and hold leaders accountable. However, this freedom often collides with the sedition law, codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—a colonial-era statute aimed at curbing dissent against the British Raj.
In recent decades, Section 124A has been invoked against students, journalists, social activists, political opponents, and even ordinary citizens for voicing dissent or making critical comments about the government.
This article explores the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the permissible limitations under Article 19(2), and the legal, political, and ethical debates surrounding sedition laws in a modern democracy. It questions whether such laws are compatible with the principles of liberty, public discourse, and democratic governance.
● USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Below is a list of important legal terms used in the context of this issue:
Legal Term Meaning & Relevance
Freedom of Speech A Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution allowing individuals to express opinions freely.
Sedition Defined under Section 124A, IPC – any act or speech that attempts to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government.
Reasonable Restrictions Permissible limitations imposed by the State under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech, in the interest of sovereignty, public order, and morality.
Mens ReaThe mental element or criminal intention behind an act. Important in distinguishing dissent from criminal conduct.
Chilling Effect The discouragement of the legitimate exercise of freedom of speech due to fear of legal consequences like sedition charges.
Public Order DoctrineLegal justification for limiting rights when expressions threaten peace and security of society.
Doctrine of Proportionality A constitutional principle that ensures state actions do not excessively infringe on rights beyond what is necessary to achieve legitimate goals.
Colonial Legacy Refers to laws inherited from the British colonial regime, like Section 124A, often criticized as outdated and undemocratic.
Overbreadth Doctrine Legal critique arguing that sedition law is too vague and expansive, risking misuse against legitimate free speech.
● THE PROOF
India, the world’s largest democracy, guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, and security of the state, public order, decency, morality, and more.
The conflict between free speech and sedition arises from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalizes any speech or expression that brings or attempts to bring “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government.” The ambiguous and subjective language of this section has led to multiple instances where dissenting voices have been suppressed under the pretext of sedition, even when such speech posed no real threat to national security.
Several notable incidents and judicial interpretations demonstrate this clash:
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder.
• Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Court held that raising slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” in a casual and non-provocative manner did not amount to sedition, as it did not incite violence or public disorder.
In recent times, sedition charges have been used against journalists, students, activists, and politicians, often leading to arrests without substantial evidence of violence or incitement.
For example:
• In 2021, a toolkit case involving environmental activist Disha Ravi led to sedition charges for allegedly supporting farmer protests.
• In 2020, journalists reporting on the Delhi riots and criticizing the government were also booked under sedition.
These examples highlight the misuse of sedition law to stifle dissent, criminalize criticism, and restrict democratic dialogue. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, while sedition cases have increased, conviction rates remain extremely low, reflecting weak legal grounds and overreach by authorities.
The Law Commission of India in its 2018 consultation paper questioned the continued relevance of sedition law and emphasized the need to strike a balance between national security and democratic freedoms.
● ABSTRACT
The conflict between free speech and sedition has become one of the most contentious legal debates in India’s democracy. While freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution, laws like Section 124A of the IPC continue to be used to suppress dissenting voices. Originally enacted during British colonial rule to crush nationalist movements, the sedition law has been criticized for its vagueness, misuse, and chilling effect on free speech.
This article analyses the legal framework, key judgments, and contemporary issues surrounding sedition in India. It calls for a re-examination of colonial-era laws in light of modern democratic ideals, where criticism of the government must be protected—not punished. The need for reform or repeal of the sedition law is stronger than ever.
● CASE LAWS
KEDAR NATH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR (1962)
• Citation: AIR 1962 SC 955
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: B.P. Sinha (C.J.), A.K. Sarkar, J.C. Shah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Raghubar Dayal, and J.R. Mudholkar, JJ.
• Date of Judgment: January 20, 1962
PARTIES
• Petitioner/Appellant: Kedar Nath Singh
• Respondent: State of Bihar
FACTS OF THE CASE
Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party, delivered a speech criticizing the Congress party and accused it of exploiting poor people. He also made remarks suggesting a violent revolution and stated that the people would “overthrow” the government.
As a result, he was charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sedition and convicted by the trial court.
ISSUED RAISED
• Whether the speech made by the petitioner amounted to sedition under the legal meaning of Section 124A?
ARGUMENTS
• Petitioner:
Argued that Section 124A is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and is a colonial law misused to suppress dissent.
• State:
Claimed that the sedition law is necessary to protect public order and prevent violence or rebellion against the State.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A IPC, stating that it is not violative of Article 19(1)(a) provided it is interpreted narrowly.
The Court read down the section and held:
• Only those acts which involve incitement to violence or tendency to create public disorder would fall within the definition of sedition.
• Mere words or expressions used to criticize the government or its policies, however strongly worded, do not constitute sedition.
BALWANT SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1995)
• Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 214
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice S. Mohan and Justice M.B. Shah
• Date of Judgment: March 21, 1995
PARTIES
• Appellants: Balwant Singh and another
• Respondent: State of Punjab
FACTS OF THE CASE
On the day of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination (October 31, 1984), Balwant Singh (a government officer) and another individual were accused of raising pro-Khalistan slogans such as:
“Khalistan Zindabad, Raj Karega Khalsa…”
Outside a cinema hall in Chandigarh.
The slogans were raised twice in a public space, but no crowd gathered nor any public disorder followed.
The two were arrested and prosecuted under Sections 124A (Sedition) and 153B IPC (promoting enmity between groups).
ISSUED RAISED
• Whether the sloganeering by the accused amounted to sedition under Section 124A IPC?
ARGUMENTS
• Prosecution (State):
Claimed that the slogans amounted to anti-national activity that could incite violence or disturb public order, qualifying as seditious.
• Defence (Appellants):
Argued that the slogans were casual, isolated, and did not result in any provocation violence, thus not add up to sedition.
JUDGMENT
• Mere raising of slogans, even if in favour of a separatist ideology, without incitement to violence or public disorder, does not constitute sedition.
• The intent behind the act and its impact on public order are crucial.
• The slogans were not followed by any violence, nor were they capable of creating public disorder.
● CONCLUSION
In a republic, public accountability requires freedom of thought and expression, even when it challenges authority. Sedition laws like Section 124A IPC are relics of colonial repression and have often been used as tools of political suppression rather than protection.
While national security remains a legitimate concern, the blanket application of sedition laws damages democratic institutions. Judicial interpretations have tried to narrow the misuse, but statutory reform or outright repeal is now necessary. True patriotism lies in speaking up, not in silencing voices.
● FAQS
Q1. What is sedition in Indian law?
Sedition under Section 124A IPC is any act or speech that brings hatred or disaffection towards the government. It is punishable by imprisonment for life or up to 3 years.
Q2. Is sedition still a valid law in India?
Yes, it still exists in the statute books. However, the Supreme Court in 2022 paused its operation and asked the central government to re-examine its validity.
Q3. Is criticizing the government sedition?
No. As per the Kedar Nath ruling, mere criticism, however strong, does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder.
Q4. What are some recent examples of sedition misuse?
• Students at JNU (2016) charged for alleged anti-national slogans.
• Activists like Disha Ravi (2021) booked for sharing a “toolkit” supporting farmers’ protest.
• Journalists like Vinod Dua were charged for criticising COVID-19 handling.
Q5. Have other countries repealed sedition laws?
Yes.
• United Kingdom abolished sedition laws in 2009.
• Australia repealed sedition laws in 2010.
These countries now rely on anti-terror and public order laws, not sedition, to maintain security.
