Author: Riddhi Patel, a student of Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
Abstract
The law prohibiting Sedition, as embodied in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been one of the greatest controversies in independent India from its very start. It was passed at a time when there was still a British presence in India, as a tool to suppress dissent against British imperial power. Although now we have a Constitution which provides for the Right of Free Speech, and that Freedom should not only be regarded as “Freedom of Dissent” today it remains that Sedition is an act that many governments have used to suppress all forms of dissent or to suppress those individuals that dissent. In this article, we will analyse the use and misuse of Sedition Laws in India today. We will analyse the historical background of Sedition Laws, as well as their Constitutionality, and the way Courts interpret and apply those laws today. We will review how the application of Sedition Laws in India today aligns with the concepts of Democracy, Rule of Law and the Morality of the Constitution.
To the Point
Originally, the Sedition Law was created to guard the government against a violent takeover and threats to its sovereignty. In addition to these original uses, it now is frequently used as a tool to suppress opposing views and political dissent from the government’s political opponents. This has created a chilling effect with respect to individuals’ ability to exercise their right to free speech, creating legitimate concerns over the ability of Sedition Law to conform to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Even though numerous legislative and judicial safeguards have been implemented, arbitrary applications of the Sedition Law continue to occur; this demonstrates the need for urgent legislative reform.
Use of Legal Jargon
The offence of sedition involves key constitutional and criminal law concepts such as mens rea, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, reasonable restrictions, doctrine of proportionality, constitutional morality, and rule of law. It directly engages the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which may be restricted only under Article 19(2) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity of India, public order, and security of the State. Judicial interpretation has confined sedition to acts involving incitement to violence, tendency to cause public disorder, and threat to the authority of the State, thereby preventing its application to mere political dissent or criticism.
The Proof
In India, there has been a clearly visible trend towards increased misuse of sedition laws based upon empirical evidence and judicial records. Civil society organisations have documented a significant rise in the number of sedition cases in the past decade as a result of civil unrest, political protest, and electoral campaigning. The extremely low conviction rate under Section 124A demonstrates that this law is often applied without adequate grounds for conviction.
Many individuals have been charged with sedition for engaging in various activities, including but not limited to: inciting others to commit acts of violence through slogans; posting comments or material critical of the government on social media; protesting peacefully against government actions; or writing articles critical of government policy. In a number of instances, courts have intervened to dismiss these prosecutions, stating that the allegations do not constitute sufficient grounds to support a finding of sedition. Unfortunately, even with intervention from the courts, the great majority of defendants endure lengthy periods in jail, experience damage to their reputations, and suffer violations of their personal liberties, thus negating their right to due process and fair trial.
Historical Background of Sedition Law in India
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1870 as an attempt by the British to restrict the fast-growing Indian Nationalist Movement against British rule. Section 124A made it a crime to promote or attempt to promote hatred, contempt, or disaffection against any lawfully constituted government. Section 124A was largely used as a means of prosecuting freedom fighters, journalists, and political activists.
Both prominent national leaders, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and Annie Besant, were charged under Section 124A. Gandhi, during his trial in 1922, famously called Section 124A “the king of all political sections of the IPC to suppress a citizen’s rights.” Despite this condemnation of Section 124A, the British continued to use it after India gained independence, which has raised questions about whether there is any real need for this law in a democratic republic.
Constitutional Validity of Sedition Law
The citizens of India have debated whether or not sedition as well as any provisions against expressing unpopular opinions in India may violate the People’s Constitution since its inception; Many people view the right to speak freely and express their views as a major basis for democracy, as provided in Article 19(1)(a). While Article 19(2) allows the imposition of restrictions that are considered “reasonable,” such restrictions must satisfy the criteria of necessity and proportionality as well as be reasonable.
The ambiguity and wide interpretation of the provision in Section 124A provides a significant amount of latitude to the police, thereby increasing the possibility that it will be applied in an arbitrary manner. Moreover, Section 124A has no statutory definition of the term “disaffection,” which makes it even more difficult to interpret Section 124A in accordance with heretofore established constitutional rights. Critics argue, therefore, that the provision does not conform to constitutional guidelines and is a violation of the principle of legality since it criminalises political speech that is deemed to be either uncomfortable or unacceptable.
Role of Sedition Law in Indian Politics
Sedition consistently has been used in Indian politics, particularly in connection with politically charged events—namely elections, large-scale protests, and policy debates. People such as opposition politicians, students engaged in activism, members of the civil society, and journalists are charged with sedition when they speak out against the government.
By its very nature, the political use of sedition prevents democratic responsibility by inhibiting discussions and dissent against government policies. In order for a healthy democracy to be successful, there needs to be an ability for individuals to openly speak out against those who govern. When such speeches are criminalised, it does nothing but foster a totalitarian mindset and will result in a system of governance that is contrary to the values expressed in the Constitution.
Case Laws
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but restricted its application to acts involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder. The Court clarified that strong criticism of government actions, however harsh, does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)
The Court held that raising slogans against the government, without any intention or likelihood of inciting violence, does not constitute sedition.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021)
The Supreme Court quashed sedition charges against a journalist, holding that criticism of government handling of public issues does not amount to sedition.
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)
The Supreme Court put the operation of Section 124A in abeyance and directed the government to reconsider the provision, marking a significant step towards reform.
Judicial Safeguards and Practical Limitations
The violation of sedition continues at the law enforcement level despite obvious judicial guidelines. Law enforcement agencies typically file FIRs primarily based on the automation created by law enforcement and not in accordance with the legal tests established by the Supreme Court. The discrepancy between the law and its application frequently results in the filing of false FIRs and arrests without bail or extended judicial handling.
The judiciary has frequently stated that dissent is essential to a thriving democracy; thus, the ongoing misuse of sedition laws exposes a lack of accountability and continues to reflect systemic failure.
Need for Reform
Growing popular opinion is that the current Draft Sedition Law is not consistent with the core values of the Constitution. Many of the world’s democratic countries have removed similar laws or provisions of law from their statute books because they agree that it is possible to maintain national security without limiting free speech when national security is defined specifically in accordance with the Constitution.
The following reforms are possible: Total repeal of section 124A; Establishment of specific inciting violence provisions; or Establishment of specific safeguards that would prevent the misuse of the law.
Conclusion
The continued existence and application of sedition law in India presents a serious challenge to the constitutional promise of democracy, liberty, and rule of law. While the State undeniably possesses the authority to safeguard its sovereignty and integrity, such power must be exercised within clearly defined constitutional limits. The frequent misuse of Section 124A against political dissenters, journalists, and citizens expressing disagreement with government policies reflects a troubling tendency to conflate criticism with disloyalty.
Judicial interventions, particularly through landmark decisions such as Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, have attempted to restrict the scope of sedition by confining it strictly to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder. However, despite these safeguards, arbitrary application at the enforcement level continues to undermine personal liberty and democratic participation. The low conviction rates further expose the misuse of the provision as a tool of intimidation rather than legitimate prosecution.
In a constitutional democracy, dissent is not a threat but a vital instrument for accountability and reform. The criminalisation of political speech through sedition laws erodes public confidence in democratic institutions and weakens constitutional morality. Therefore, comprehensive legislative reform—either through repeal or substantial amendment of Section 124A—is imperative. Aligning national security concerns with fundamental rights is essential to ensure that India remains a robust democracy governed by constitutional values rather than colonial-era restraints.
FAQS
Q1. What is sedition under Indian law?
Sedition refers to acts that incite violence or public disorder against the government established by law.
Q2. Is criticism of the government sedition?
No. Mere criticism without incitement to violence does not constitute sedition.
Q3. Why is sedition law controversial?
Due to its vague language and frequent misuse against political dissenters.
Q4. Has the Supreme Court stayed sedition law?
Yes, the operation of Section 124A has been kept in abeyance pending reconsideration by the government.
