Author: Isha Choubey, New Law College, BVDU
Introduction
Enshrined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), India’s sedition law has long been a divisive topic, balancing the basic right to free speech protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution against the state’s interest in upholding order. This colonial-era rule, introduced by the British in 1870 to quell dissent, makes it illegal to say anything that incites hostility, disdain, or discontent with the administration. Even after India became a thriving democracy, the law still exists and is frequently abused to stifle opponents, activists, and journalists. Its applicability was re-examined after the Supreme Court suspended its usage in May 2022. This article examines the historical foundations, judicial interpretations, and current abuses of the sedition statute, as well as its conflicts with the ideals of free expression. It examines significant cases, proposed changes, and foreign viewpoints, contending that the law’s ambiguity and abuse potential demand its repeal or significant revision in order to conform to democratic principles and international human rights norms.
India’s Historical Foundations of Sedition
British colonial rule used the sedition statute, which was enshrined in Section 124A of the IPC in 1870, as a weapon to quell anti-colonial feelings. It targeted well-known independence activists who were prosecuted for their writings and speeches, like as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi famously referred to it as the IPC’s “prince among the political sections,” which was intended to stifle individual freedom. Because of the law’s sweeping provisions, which made it illegal to do anything that incites “hatred or contempt” toward the government, colonial rulers were able to suppress dissent with little distinction. Members of the Constituent Assembly opposed its inclusion as a threat to free expression during the post-independence debate. One such member was K.M. Munshi. The law persisted in spite of this, justified as a safeguard for public order. Its colonial beginnings, which were based on authoritarian rule rather than democratic ideals, make it difficult to understand its place in contemporary India, where democracy is based on the right to free speech. Even if the law’s application has changed throughout time, it nevertheless demonstrates a reluctance to completely depart from colonial traditions.
Free Speech and the Constitution
Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) for reasons of public order, security, and other considerations. However, Section 124A frequently goes beyond these bounds, making dissent that does not openly promote violence illegal. Although it limited the law’s application by requiring a demonstrable intent or inclination to instigate violence or public disorder, the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar ruling maintained the law’s validity. Notwithstanding this, the law’s ambiguous definitions of “disaffection” and “contempt” allow for subjective enforcement, compromising constitutional safeguards. Examples of how the legislation affects non-violent speech include the case of Disha Ravi, who was charged with providing a protest toolkit. Only speech that poses a threat to state security warrants regulation, according to the Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras. However, Section 124A’s wide application has the chilling effect of deterring free speech and going against the democratic ideal of free expression. Nevertheless, police and lower courts frequently disregard these rules, interpreting the law liberally to stifle dissent. This discrepancy emphasizes the necessity of more precise legal guidelines or legislative changes to stop capricious enforcement and safeguard constitutional rights.
Current Political Weaponization and Abuse
Section 124A has been used more and more as a weapon against government critics in recent years, especially during the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) administration. According to data from Article 14, the number of sedition cases increased by 28% year between 2014 and 2020, with 96% of cases being filed after 2014. Activists like Umar Khalid, journalists like Siddique Kappan, and students opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act are among the high-profile cases. Nonviolent statements, including speeches or posts on social media, are frequently accused of seditious behaviour in these cases in an effort to quell opposition. The low conviction rate—just 3% between 2014 and 2019—indicates that the law is more frequently used to harass people than to get convictions, which stifles free speech. Critics contend that this abuse is a reflection of growing authoritarianism, in which the rule of law serves to preserve the government’s reputation rather than the security of the country, eroding democratic values of accountability and free speech.
Views from Around the World on Sedition Laws
Sedition laws are becoming viewed as antiquated and incompatible with democratic ideals on a global scale. Realizing its insignificance in a contemporary democracy, the United Kingdom, which had established India’s sedition statute, repealed its own in 2009. Prioritizing free speech, other former British colonies like Canada and New Zealand have either eliminated or drastically curtailed sedition laws. In contrast, as seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the United States maintains a sedition legislation but applies it strictly, requiring a clear intent to promote violence. India’s sedition law has drawn criticism from international organizations such as the UN Human Rights Committee for breaching Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that speech limitations must be reasonable and necessary. These worldwide developments highlight the necessity for India to amend or repeal Section 124A in order to bring it into compliance with democratic ideals and international human rights norms.
Suggested Changes and the Position of the Law Commission
In its contentious 279th Report (2023), the Law Commission of India suggested keeping Section 124A in place with harsher penalties, claiming that it safeguards national security and that its colonial roots do not warrant its abolition. Critics contend that the report’s ambiguous definition of “tendency” as a “mere inclination to incite violence” worsens the chilling effect of the law. On the other hand, reform suggestions call for making sedition a bailable offense, requiring prior government approval for prosecutions, and limiting the concept of sedition to include only direct incitement to violence. As suggested in the INC’s 2019 manifesto, some have called for total repeal, notably Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. The need for reform is underscored by the Supreme Court’s 2022 suspension of the statute and Chief Justice N.V. Ramana’s comments comparing its abuse to a carpenter using a saw to clear an entire forest. It is nonetheless crucial that the law be in line with international and constitutional norms.
The Way Ahead: Reform or Repeal?
It is becoming more and more unacceptable that the sedition law still exists in India’s democratic system. Its ambiguous wording and abuse have a chilling effect, suppressing dissent and eroding the democratic freedom to express disapproval of the administration. The Law Commission’s advice to uphold and strengthen the law runs the risk of solidifying its shortcomings, but the Supreme Court’s 2022 suspension provides a window for revision. India’s commitment to free expression would be affirmed if Section 124A were repealed, as Britain did. However, if retention is seen to be required, revisions must include clear definitions, judicial oversight, and procedural protections to prevent abuse. Concerns are raised regarding the ambiguous wording of the planned Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, which would replace the IPC and target activities that undermine sovereignty by introducing Section 150 but excluding sedition. India must strike a balance between the right to free speech and national security, making sure that laws support democracy rather than stifle it. The tension between this colonial legacy and contemporary democratic norms must be resolved by vigorous public discussion and legislative action.
FAQs
Q1: Why is India’s sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC considered problematic in the context of the free speech?
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is considered problematic because its vague terms, such as “disaffection” and “contempt” toward the government, allow for subjective and arbitrary enforcement. This often leads to the criminalization of non-violent dissent, as seen in cases like Disha Ravi’s, where sharing a protest toolkit was deemed seditious. The law’s broad application creates a chilling effect, deterring free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and its misuse to target activists, journalists, and students undermines democratic principles.
Q2: How has the Supreme Court addressed the application of the sedition law in India?
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in scrutinizing Section 124A. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), it upheld the law’s constitutionality but restricted its application to speech or actions with a clear intent or tendency to incite violence or public disorder. In 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, the Court suspended the use of Section 124A, citing its potential for abuse and urging a re-examination of its relevance, with Chief Justice N.V. Ramana highlighting its misuse as a tool to suppress dissent.
Q3: What reforms have been suggested to address the issues with India’s sedition law?
Suggested reforms include repealing Section 124A entirely, as advocated by figures like Shashi Tharoor and proposed in the Indian National Congress’s 2019 manifesto, to align with democratic free speech norms. Alternatively, reforms propose making sedition a bailable offense, requiring prior government sanction for prosecutions, and limiting the law’s scope to only direct incitement to violence. The document also notes the need for clearer definitions and judicial oversight to prevent abuse, especially in light of the proposed Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the IPC but retains ambiguous provisions targeting sovereignty.
These FAQs encapsulate the document’s key concerns regarding the sedition law’s conflict with free speech, its judicial scrutiny, and the ongoing debate over reform or repeal. If you need further elaboration or additional FAQs, please let me know!
References
Donogh, W.R. (1911). A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 682 of 2021, Supreme Court of India (2022).
Article 14. (2021). Sedition in India: A Colonial Law Misused. Retrieved from https://www.article-14.com.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2011). General Comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression. Geneva: UNHRC.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Law Commission of India. (2023). 279th Report on the Usage of the Law of Sedition. New Delhi: Government of India.
