Sedition in India is defined under the Indian Penal Code, under section 124 a.

124A. Sedition.—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,  102 [***] the Government established by law
in  103  [India], [***] shall be punished with  104 [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.

Sedition, as an offense, is meant to punish those who would incite hatred or

disaffection against the government which is established by law. Within the
explanations given in the IPC under this section it makes clear that comments
which criticize the government or its actions with a view obtain change through
lawful means is not an offense.
However in recent years, Sedition has been seen as dangerous hangover from
colonials times that is actually inhibiting free speech.
“Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law.If one has no affection
for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his
disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence.”
This is what Gandhi said in 1922 while on trial being accused of Sedition.
In the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of
India, upholding the constitutional validity of 124-A, ruled that a person could
be prosecuted if they “incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create
public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace”.

In its third attempt to determine the validity of sedition, earlier last year, the
Law Commission of India observed that while dissent is essential to any
democracy, law enforcement agencies must use sedition law judiciously.
Additionally, it also held that it is necessary for the Supreme Court to interpret
the provisions of sedition law. The report also notes that the United Kingdom
has itself abolished its own law on sedition almost a decade ago. While the
powers of the Law Commission of India are limited to providing suggestions
and recommendations only, the Parliament of India, the lawmaking body of the
government, and the judiciary, the custodian of human rights, ought to revisit
the justification of this provision.

With the indiscriminate use of archaic laws for dissenting against the
government, many have raised their voices against such arbitrary restrictions on
the fundamental right to free speech and expression, which is granted under the
Constitution of India. Given the record of the ruling party in the last four years,
intolerance of criticism is only seeing a rise in the country with authorities
clamping down on free speech behind the garb of disloyalty and anti-national
sentiments.
In 2015, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which
criminalised online speech considered “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, and
caused “annoyance”, was struck down as unconstitutional due to the ambiguity
of such terms. The Supreme Court of India held that any restrictions on speech
could only be deemed reasonable under Section 19(2) of the Constitution of
India. While the sedition law suffers a similar problem with definition, along
with a lack of procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court has argued time and
again that seditious words or actions are likely to threaten public order or incite
violence, which is a reasonable restriction on free speech.

In data submitted to the Parliament of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs,

which is in charge of law and order in the country, between 2014 and 2016, the
first three years of the current government’s time in power, 179 people were
arrested on the charge of sedition with only two convictions. This leads many to
believe that authorities are abusing the law to stifle dissent and harass those who
speak out.
There is a growing demand for amending the sedition law or repealing this relic
of the past. However, there is an urgent necessity to first address the systemic
flaws to ensure that these laws are not misused so as to mock free speech in
India.
To me, as a student of law, I think it’s clear that we need to acknowledge that
Sedition, an offense drafted in colonial times, needs to be struck down as it
hampers and inhibits free speech and expression. The law isn’t effective in
dealing with those who might incite violence or hatred but is instead used as a
political tool that stifles the voices of the dissenting opinion. It’s clear that the
very least it’s time we revisit this law and truly examine whether it fits as a
reasonable restriction to free speech or a useful method to throw down anyone
opposing the government.