Published on 16 Jan 2025
Section 124A of IPC defines the act of sedition as any words or action that generates a sense of hatred or contempt or excites disaffection against the government established by law in India. There has been pertinent demand from various circles for the removal of the colonial era provisions and the union government in its recent Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Bill, 2023 has proposed to repeal sedition law and replace that with section 150 which is being proposed for acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Need for a law on sedition
Protect national security and integrity: The sedition law prevents acts that incite violence or promote hatred against the government or the state thus preserving the security of the nation.
Preservation of public order: The provisions of IPC 124 empower states to penalise actions that could lead to riots, unrest or disruption of peace in the society.
Prevent the rise of anti-government organisations: The law could deter individuals or groups from engaging in activities that destabilise the government.
Balance between Freedom of speech and National interests: The intent behind sedition law is to strike a balance by restricting speech that threatens the sovereignty, security and public order of the nation.
Concerns regarding sedition law
Political misuse for suppressing dissent: The powers offered by the sedition law can be used by the government to target critics and political rivals and thus stifle dissent.
Example: In 2019, 49 eminent personalities were charged with sedition for writing an open letter to the Prime Minister expressing concerns over incidents of mob lynching.
Chilling effect on free speech: An increase in the number of cases under sedition law can create a sense of fear among the citizens, thus having a chilling effect on free speech.
Example: Between 2016 and 2019, the number of cases registered under Section 124A of the IPC increased by 160%. This creates a chilling effect among citizens.
Ambiguity in the law: The definition of sedition is much wider which opens scope for misinterpretations to suit the demand of the state.
Lack of accountability: There have been many cases of the law being misused but the authority has not been held accountable for this misuse.
Example: In 2019, only 2 of the 96 suspects arrested for sedition have been convicted. This indicates the failure to hold the authority accountable.
Impact on press freedom: The law has specifically targeted the journalists who are being critical of the policies of the government.
Example: Sedition case against Vinod Dua.
International scrutiny: Human rights organisations and associations that advocate free speech across the globe have been critical of the provisions under Section 124A.
Judicial observation
Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar case, 1962: No crime of sedition is established under Section 124A unless the remarks have the potential to disrupt public order. Mere criticism of government policy does not amount to sedition.
Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab, 1995: Merely raising slogans does not constitute sedition as there was no evidence that violence occurred due to these slogans.
Vinod Dua vs Union of India case, 2021: A citizen has the right to criticise the actions of the government as long as he does not incite people to violence against the government.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the provisions of Section 124A to be kept under abeyance and the central government has initiated measures to change them with the new bill. The new bill should have more clarity in defining such offences with adequate preventive measures to ensure they are not politically misused by those in power.
Polity
Sedition law
Section 124A of IPC
section 150 of BNS
Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar
Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab
Vinod Dua vs Union of India case
General Studies Paper 2
Indian Constitution
Related Articles