Section 124A of the IPC deals with Sedition. Sedition is the encouragement of people to oppose the government or authorities. Sedition is when a person encourages hatred toward the government, which leads to others causing public disorder or violence. When an act creates dissatisfaction with the government, it is referred to as seditious.

In this article let us see the history of sedition law in India, What is its current status, court cases related to sedition and Arguments against it.

Historical Background

• Thomas Macaulay drafted the Penal Code in 1837.
  • Section 113 of the Penal Code was added in 1837 to deal with sedition.
  • It was then dropped from the Penal Code, only to be reinstated in 1870 by Sir James Stephen's revision.
  • This clause on sedition was introduced by the British Raj in India under the title "Exciting Disaffection."
• IPC Amendment Act of 1898 – It made amendments to the Penal Code of 1870.
  • The current Section 124A is said to be similar to the amendments made to it in 1898 with few omissions.

What is Sedition?

• The IPC Section 124 A says, “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government estab­lished by law in India shall be punished with [im­prisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with impris­onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
• Disaffection towards the Government included disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• An offense under Sedition is considered when comments disapprove of government measures but with a view to alter them lawfully.
  • That is, ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the meas­ures of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.’
  • Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.

• Punishment for the Sedition under the IPC includes,
  • It is a non-bailable offense.
  • A fine may be applied to a sentence of up to three years in jail or a life sentence.
  • Anyone convicted of this crime is ineligible for any government position.

Court cases related to Sedition Law in India

Pre-Independence

Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891)

• Jogendra Bose published a paper in which he criticized the 1891 Age of Consent Act.
• His critique was interpreted as a form of resistance to the administration.
• The case was eventually withdrawn when he was released on bond.

Lokmanya Tilak's Sedition Trial (1908)

• Tilak published two Kesari pieces, "The Country's Misfortune" on May 12, 1908, and "These Remedies Are Not Lasting" on June 9, 1908.
• He was sentenced to six years in prison in Burma under the newly enacted Section 124A. (Now, Myanmar).

Sedition Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922)

• For his columns in his publication, 'Young India,' Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years.
• "Bringing or attempting to stir dissension against His Majesty's Government established by law in British India" was one of the charges leveled against him.

Post-Independence – Supreme Court Decisions

Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950) & Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras (1950)

• The Supreme Court ruled that legislation restricting speech because it would disrupt public order was unconstitutional.
• The 'First Constitution Amendment' was spurred by the court's judgment, which rewrote Article 19 (2) to replace "undermining the security of the state" with "in the interest of public order".

Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar(1962)

• In this case, the constitutionality of Section 124A was challenged.
• A member of the Forward Bloc was charged with sedition after making a speech.
• "Speech or writing in which "subverting the government by violent means" is implicit—including the notion of "revolution"—is seditious," the Supreme Court ruled.
• Sedition is defined as a futile attempt to incite.
• Creating public unrest was treasonous.
• There was no "irrational distinction" made between criticism of the government's actions and criticism of the government itself.

Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1962)

• On the day of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination, Balwant Singh, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) in Punjab, Chandigarh, and other cities, was accused of shouting pro-Khalistan slogans.
• The Supreme Court ruled that merely sloganeering is not punishable under Section 124A unless there is public disruption.

Kanhaiya Kumar vs State of NCT (2016)

• Kanhaiya Kumar was a Student Union Leader of the JNU and was arrested on Sedition charges as few videos surfaced about seditious slogans.
• However, the allegations were proven wrong as the videos were doctored.

Significance of Sedition

• The law prevents anti-national, separatist, and terrorist elements from disrupting public order, inciting violence, and inciting hostility.
• It contributes to the stability of an elected government that would otherwise be deposed through illegal and violent means.
• It's a symbiotic relationship with contempt of court. The executive branch includes the elected government. As a result, the government's contempt can be checked.

Criticism of Sedition Law

• Because the seeds of sedition law were established during colonial times, it is frequently portrayed as a harsh law that can be utilized to curtail constitutionally given freedom of speech and expression.
• It is detrimental to constructive criticism. Views that differ from those of the government are not always seditious, as the Supreme Court has stated. As a result, sedition laws have the potential to demotivate legal and authorized criticism.
• The Sedition Act was repealed in the United Kingdom in 2009, thus India should be done with it by now.
• The IPC and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2019 both provide provisions that can be used to punish the offender for disrupting public order.

Conclusion

• As a result, sedition is a highly contentious law in our country, and the government must strike a balance between sedition and freedom of speech and expression, as the right to publicly criticize the government is fundamental for a healthy democracy.
• The Court upholds the validity of Section 124A, although it is a conviction for acts involving violence or encouragement to violence.
• Because the authorities are abusing this section, now is an excellent opportunity to improve or revise it.

FAQs

MCQs

1. Which section of the Indian Penal Code deals with sedition law in India?

A) Section 302
B) Section 377
C) Section 124A
D) Section 500

2. What is the main focus of sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC?

A) Promoting peace and harmony
B) Criticizing government policies
C) Causing disaffection towards the government
D) Supporting government officials

3. Which landmark case is associated with the interpretation of sedition law by the Supreme Court of India?

A) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
B) Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar
C) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
D) S R Bommai v. Union of India

4. What is one of the main criticisms of the sedition law in India?

A) It promotes free speech
B) It encourages violence
C) It is often misused to curb free speech
D) It supports political dissent

5. Which of the following is NOT a consequence of being convicted under the sedition law?

A) Imprisonment
B) Fine
C) Suspension of civil rights
D) Death penalty

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Assess the impact of the sedition law on freedom of speech and expression in India.

Answer: The sedition law in India has had a significant impact on freedom of speech and expression, often leading to its suppression. Originally introduced by the British to curb dissent, the law has been widely used to silence critics, activists, and political opponents of the government. While the law was intended to protect the state from violent revolts, its application has extended to peaceful protests and expressions of disagreement. The misuse of sedition laws to charge individuals for speaking out against the government has led to concerns over the erosion of democratic freedoms and individual rights. In a democratic society, the right to free speech is a fundamental right, and the sedition law, if misused, can undermine this principle, leading to widespread self-censorship and fear of state repression.

Q2: Discuss the judicial scrutiny of the sedition law in India and the steps taken to prevent its misuse.

Answer: The judicial scrutiny of the sedition law in India has been a crucial aspect of its interpretation and application. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), upheld the validity of sedition but made it clear that criticism of the government or its policies does not constitute sedition unless it incites violence or disrupts public order. This ruling sought to ensure that the sedition law was not used to stifle legitimate political discourse. However, despite this, there have been multiple instances of its misuse, leading to calls for its review or repeal. The Court’s rulings continue to play an essential role in preventing the arbitrary application of the law, but the debate over its relevance in a modern democratic society persists.

Q3: Evaluate whether the sedition law should be repealed or reformed in light of modern democratic values in India.

Answer: The sedition law, while historically significant for colonial purposes, is increasingly viewed as incompatible with modern democratic values. In a democracy, the right to free speech is fundamental, and any law that restricts this right must be carefully scrutinized. The sedition law, as it stands, is prone to misuse and often used to target dissenters, activists, journalists, and political opponents. Given the changing political landscape and the growing importance of civil liberties, there is a strong argument for either reforming or repealing the sedition law. Reforms could include narrowing the scope of the law to limit its use only in cases of incitement to violence or terrorism, while repealing it would ensure that free expression is not unduly curtailed. Ultimately, the law should align with the principles of justice, fairness, and respect for fundamental rights in a democratic society.

Previous Year Questions on Sedition Law

1. UPSC CSE Prelims 2020:

Question: What is the main objective of the sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?

A) To promote free speech
B) To suppress rebellion against the government
C) To protect individuals from defamation
D) To protect public property

Answer: (B)

Explanation: The main objective of sedition law is to suppress actions or speech that incite rebellion or disaffection against the government.

2. UPSC CSE Mains 2021 (GS Paper 2):

Question: "Critically analyze the sedition law in India and its relevance in the current democratic context."

Answer: The sedition law in India was introduced by the British as a tool to control dissent during colonial rule. While the law was meant to prevent rebellion, its misuse in post-independence India has led to a significant debate regarding its relevance. In the current democratic setup, where freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the sedition law is often used to silence critics of the government. The law has been repeatedly challenged in the courts, with arguments against its misuse for stifling political opposition and dissent. While the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to prevent arbitrary application, the law’s broad scope and its potential for misuse make it an anachronistic tool in the modern democratic era. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider its relevance, either through reform or repeal, to ensure that it does not infringe upon the democratic right to free speech.