Author :Tinevimbo, a Student of School Vishwakarma University
To the Point
Introduced by the British colonial rule ,the sedition law in India under section 124A (IPC) aimed to stop the uprisings by the Nationalist and its enforcement was frequently arbitrary and cruel, however it cease to exist even after Independence. The question today is whether this law serves a valid constitutional function in a democratic republic or whether it is a redundant and misused colonial leftover. This article examines the historical origins, judicial interpretations, recent developments and the urgent need for reform or repeal.
Use of Legal Jargon
According to Indian law, sedition is regulated by section 124a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was introduced during British colonial rule to suppress any opposition to their authority. The term ‘sedition’ refers to actions or words that promote disloyalty towards legal authorities. According to section 124a of the law, it is prohibited to engage in any form of speech or action that aims to incite hatred, disrespect, or disaffection towards the government recognized by the law in India.
The constitution of India upholds the legality of sedition laws, drawing upon principles like ‘public order’,’reasonable limits’, and ‘freedom of speech and expression’ as outlined in articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2). Despite the fact that article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech, this right can be restricted by the government through reasonable actions taken for reasons such as maintaining public order, ensuring security, and so on. Tension arises from the need to safeguard individual rights from the state while also ensuring the safety of the citizens.
In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. In state of Bihar (1962), the court limited sedition to any act that incites violence or disrupts public order. Nevertheless, the terms ‘disaffection’ and ‘hatred’ being open to interpretation raise concerns about fairness and potential misuse, particularly in the context of democracy. When challenging sedition laws, courts frequently consider the balance between protecting free speech and preventing excessive punishment, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and avoiding a chilling effect on dissent.
In essence, since section 124a is still included in the legal code, it indicates that colonial rules have not been completely replaced by modern constitutional principles, warranting a reconsideration of its relevance in contemporary Indian democracy.
The Proof
Initially presented by the British colonial administration through the IPC Revision Act of 1870, the subversion law was planned to smother patriot voices like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were charged beneath this arrangement. Whereas India embraced a majority rule Structure in 1950, Area 124A was held, in spite of its clear inconsistency with the ensured opportunity of discourse and expression beneath Article 19(1)(a).
Area 124A of the law was first investigated judicially in the Kedar case from State of Bihar (1962), where the Supreme Court established that this area was enforceable, but only against acts involved in promoting viciousness or jeopardizing public peace. The Court tried to bring the colonial-era Structure into line with the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution by limiting feedback to government. Even so, the specific part of the law for Segment 124A was not updated which suggests it can still be used widely.
Looking at cases and legal patterns shows that the law has been abused. The National Wrongdoing Records Bureau (NCRB) and generous rights sets of the period show that there are more cases of subversion and the most vulnerable are writers, students, activists and people who disagree. For example, the number of rebellion cases increased greatly after 2014, even though convictions remained low which suggests that the law is mostly used to control dissent instead of protect the law itself.
Besides, the Law Commission of India, in the discussion paper published in 2018, brought up rebellion and said that dissent can be a mark of democracy that is active, while such laws might not have a role in an advanced country with justice. According to the Commission, the laws presently in force, including 153A and 265A of the IPC and the Unlawful Exercises (Anticipation) Act (UAPA), can handle real threats to the nation.
After the eyes of Union of India noticed the harmful effects of the law on rebellion, it temporarily withheld its usage and coordinated with State governments to not use it until a review is conducted. It demonstrates the judiciary becoming more concerned about the abuse and misuse of Segment 124A lately.
Due to this, looking to restrict rebellion statements as foreign by translation, the still-existing overly broad rules from colonial times raise serious risks to speech and fairness, asking for an urgent response from law officials.
Abstract
Although India has picked up Autonomy from the colonial run the show in 1947, a few of the colonial-era laws such as article 124A still exist within the constitution.The key issue lies in adjusting national security with principal opportunities. Beneath article 19(1)(a), the opportunity of discourse and expression is guaranteed.Nonetheless, these rebellion laws smothers the authentic political talk and dissent.Courts have attempted to decrease the scope of subversion laws but still abuse continues.This article investigates legitimate advancement , legal translation and the modern status of the subversion law in India.
Judicial Interpretations
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
This landmark case in India addressed the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC concerning sedition .
The Supreme Court held that if one merely criticizes the government or its policies without violence to the public order , that does not amount to sedition .This ruling emphasized the need to distinguish between free speech and actions that genuinely endanger the state.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)
The accused shouted pro-Khalistan slogans in a public place.
The Court held that doing slogans only without provocation to violence does not attract Section 124A.
3. Ameerpet v. State of Telengana (2018)
This case involved a social media post that allegedly contained a seditious content.
The Telengana High Court quashed the sedition changes, stating that the past did not pose a real threat to national security. The court underscored the importance of context in assessing speech and reiterated that dissent is an essential element of a democracy.
4. SG Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)
In a significant development, the Supreme Court put a stay on all sedition trials, and directed both the Centre and States to refrain from registering new cases under Section 124A until a re-examination is conducted.
The Union Government informed the Court that it was reviewing the provision, signaling potential reform.
Contemporary Relevance and Criticism
Misuse of the Law
As per NCRB data (2020), 93 cases of sedition were filed, but only 1 conviction was secured.
This suggests a low success rate, but a high misuse rate , thus indicating that the law is more often used for intimidation than justice.
Many people have faced sedition charges and among the are students, journalists, and even comedians.
The broad and vague language of the law leads to arbitrary arrests and stifles dissent.
Violation of Democratic Norms
Sedition law is often seen as incompatible with democratic values, where dissent is a vital component.
Critics argue that Section 124A criminalizes expression and allows the State to silence critics by labeling them as anti-national.
Global Perspective
United Kingdom repealed sedition laws in 2009.
Australia, New Zealand, and USA have either repealed or restricted sedition to only in times of war or national emergency.
India remains among the few democracies to retain and use this archaic provision.Most modern democracies have abolished sedition laws, citing their incompatibility with free speech in democratic societies.
Constitutional Conflicts
Article 19(1)(a) vs. Section 124A
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2): Allows restrictions only if they are reasonable and in the interest of public order or national security.
Section 124A, however, criminalizes vague acts like “disaffection,” “hatred,” or “contempt,” which can easily include non-violent political dissent thereby raising concerns about unconstitutional over breadth
Need for Repeal or Reform
According to the consultation paper of 2018, The Law Commission of India noted that ,the law is redundant, as adequate provisions exist under UAPA, NSA, and other security laws.
However, it stopped short of recommending repeal.In its 2023 observations, the Supreme Court emphasized constitutional morality and reminded the legislature that laws must evolve with society.
Proposed Alternatives
To abolish Section 124A just like what other democracies did.
Judiciary Independence:
Strong judicial independence makes sure sedition cases are resolved fairly,with less possibility for political influence.Judicial reviews can also defend civil rights against unfair enforcement.
Raising public knowledge through events and classes:
Legal literacy shows the public how to act lawfully, as well as inspires them to fight for improvements in sedition laws.
Conclusion
Due of its blurry language, risk of being abused and apparent redundancy, the law of sedition is mostly obsolete. While national security remains important, it must not come at the cost of citizens’ fundamental rights. The judiciary’s stance in SG Vombatkere offers a chance for course correction—either to repeal or radically reform the law in line with constitutional values.
FAQs
Q1. Are there any laws that criminalizes Sedition in India?
Section 124A of the IPC is still law in India, though its application has temporarily been paused by the Supreme Court (2022) until it is reviewed.
Q2. Would speaking out against the government be considered bringing charges of sedition?
No. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh that voicing disapproval peacefully cannot be called sedition.
Q3. How is sedition punished?
A person may receive life imprisonment or a jail term up to three years, together with fine penalties.
Q4. Do people in India have any freedom of expression?
Yes. Under article 19(1)a, every individual have the right to freedom of speech and expression, however Article19(2) places some restrictions.
Q5. Are there only Indian laws that cover sedition?
No, however, many modern democracies including the UK, the USA and Australia have considerably relaxed or repealed their sedition regulations.
