MEDIA LAWS ASSINMENT

SUBMITTED BY KARUNA SUBBIAH AND ANINDITA SINHA

TOPIC: SEDITION

SEDITION
INTRODUCTION
The term ‘Sedition’ means “conduct or speech which results in mutiny against the authority of the
state”. Law of Sedition deals with section 124A of IPC, 1860, which is considered a reasonable
restriction on freedom of speech. It was drafted by Thomas Macaulay and introduced in 1870.

The beginning of Rebellion law in India is associated with the Wahabi's Development of the 19th
century. This was an Islamic evangelist development and was driven by Syed Ahmed Barelvi. Since
1830, the progress was dynamic but, within the wake of the 1857 revolt, it turned into equipped
resistance, a Jihad against the British. The British named Wahabis rebels and carried out military
operations against Wahabis.

In British Time, Area 124A was not a portion of the Indian Correctional Code, 1860. But this Area was
embedded into IPC by the IPC (Correction) Act, 1870. By an altering act of 1898, this arrangement
was afterward supplanted by Area 124A. Agreeing to the British Time Law, beneath the ancient IPC,
“Exciting or endeavouring to energize sentiments or offense was considered as Sedition".

Activities seditious in nature are as follows

• Any words, which can be either composed or talked or signs

which incorporate placards/posters (obvious representation)
• Must bring hatred, contempt, and alienation against the Government of India.
• Must lead to “impending violence” or open cluster.

As per the elucidation of the Court on Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the taking

after acts have been considered as “seditious”.

• Raising of trademarks against the government – example – “Khalistan Zindabad” by bunches.

The raising of trademarks by people casually once or twice was held not to be rebellious.
• A discourse made by an individual must affect savagery / open clutter for it to be
considered rebellious. Ensuing cases have gone to advance translate it
to incorporate “incitement of inescapable violence”.
• Any composed work which prompts savagery and open clutter.

Sedition found in other Laws

The following are some laws which cover Sedition law:

 ● Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 124A)
● The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 95)
● The Seditious Meetings Act, 1911 &
● The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (Section 2(o) (iii)).

Sedition: Disloyalty in Action

“Sedition” has been portrayed as disloyalty in action. The object of sedition law is

to actuate discontent and insurrection, and blend up resistance to the Government and bring
the administration of equity into contempt. The rebellion could be a wrong crime because
it includes all those practices that result in conduct unsettling influence within the state or to lead to
a respectful war which disdains the imperial and advances open cluster.

Punishment for the offence of sedition

• Sedition is a non-bail able offense. Punishment beneath the Section 124A ranges

from detainment up to three a long time to a life term, to which a fine may be included.
• An individual charged beneath this law is banned from a government job. They have to live
without their visa and must deliver themselves within the court at all times as and when
required.

Beginning of sedition law in modern India

• The law was initially drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but
was mysteriously overlooked when the IPC was sanctioned in 1860.
• Section 124A was embedded in 1870 by a correction presented by Sir James Stephen when it
felt the requirement for a particular area to bargain with the offense. It was one of
the numerous draconian laws ordered to smother any voices of contradicting at that time.

Arguments in support of Section 124A

• Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist, and fear-based
oppressor components
• It secures the chosen government from endeavours to oust the government
with viciousness and unlawful implies. The proceeded presence of the government set up by
law is a fundamental condition of the steadiness of the State
• On the off chance that disdain of court welcomes correctional activity, disdain of
government ought to also pull in punishment
• Numerous districts in several states confront a
Maoist insurgency and revolt bunches essentially run a parallel organization.
These bunches transparently advocate the topple of the state government
by transformation
• Against this background, the cancelation of Section 124A would be ill-advised just since it
has been wrongly conjured in a few exceedingly publicized cases

Arguments against Section 124A

• Section 124A could be an antique of colonial legacy and unsuited in a majority rule

government. It could be an imperative on the genuine work
out of naturally ensured flexibility of discourse and expression.
• Contradict and feedback of the government are fundamental fixings of vigorous open talk
about in a dynamic vote-based system. They ought to not be built as rebellion. The
proper to address, criticize and alter rulers is exceptionally essential to the thought of
democracy.
 • The British, who presented sedition to abuse Indians, have themselves annulled the law in
their nation. There's no reason, why should not India cancel this segment.
• The terms utilized under Section 124A like 'disaffection' are unclear and subject
to distinctive elucidations to the impulses and fancies of the examining officers.

India is the largest democracy in the world and the right to free speech and expression is an

essential fixing of majority rule government. The expression or thought that is not in accordance
with the arrangement of the government of the day must not be considered sedition.

SIGNIFICANCE
Times have changed, developments have occurred and the cognitive capacities of individuals have
gained impetus in the contemporary pro-rights world. The individuals have started questioning
everything that appears wrong with them because as a matter of fact, the individuals have been
conferred with ‘such rights’ by the law of their countries. The postmodernist era that we have
entered into, reveres all sorts of arguments and beliefs that delineate scepticism or challenge to the
established notions, provided a reasonable rationale is endorsed along with it. Therefore, it can be
said that what society now wants is to be governed by ‘rationality and reasonability’ to shield their
rights instead of some form of draconian or stringent laws. 

To the government, the representative gives a tag of anti-national to be that as it

may censure them. Many of the understudy pioneers of India have been labelled as anti-
national just because they are against the foundation.

One thing ought to be apparent that sedition cannot be utilized to control the feedback of the

government. Individuals should realize that criticizing a government is not censoring the country.
Article 19 (1) of the Indian constitution ensures the opportunity of discourse and expression
to each citizen of the nation. However, that should not go against the sovereignty and integrity of
the country.

Sedition Law can be utilized as a degree of keeping up open order to make a sense of fear among the
so-called anti-national bunches and people. But not for those who are against the government.

Some significant points under the Sedition Law are –

• To maintain national integrity and security

• To create a sense of fear among the anti-national groups.
• To maintain public order
• Balance freedom of expression with the collective national interest.
• To prevent damage to the public property from mobs.

Few cases under sedition-

* Disha Ravi was arrested in sedition charges on February 14 for editing the toolkit posted by Greta
Thunberg as a support for the farmers however she added that she was not the creator of the
toolkit, and just made two small edits to it. She was also suspected of having connections with the
Khalistanis and was plotting towards other Indian States. She also repressed India in global forums,
Disha was sent to police custody for 5 days.

* Kangana Ranaut and her sister Rangoli started a social media war which became bizarre due to
their post about several actors, politicians, BMC etc. A complaint was filed against them for creating
communal hatred towards the public through social media post later for which Sahil Ashrafali Sayyed
filed a complaint to the Bandra Magistrate Court.

* An Fir was filed against several well-known 49 celebrities which included Ramchandra Guha,
Aparna Sen and Mani Rantan for writing an open letter to the Prime Minister raising concern over
the growing mob lynching in the nation. Sudhir Kumar Ojha on July 27 filed a fir against the
celebrities as he felt it was a way of defaming the country and its prime minister.

* On June 21,2017 fifteen villagers from Madhya Pradesh were arrested and charged with sedition as
they cheered for Pakistan's cricket team and celebrated the loss of the Indian cricket team Pakistani
team in 180 runs. The villagers burst crackers for the loss of Indian team and raised pro-Pakistani
and anti-Indian slogans.

* Sikha Sarma guwahati based writer was charged with sedition for a Facebook post which was
written after the death if 22 jawans the post was claimed to be utterly disgraceful towards the
sacrifice of Indian soldiers. Sikha had posted "Salaried professionals who die in the line of duty
cannot be termed martyrs. Going by that logic, electricity department workers who die of
electrocution should also be labelled martyrs. Do not make people sentiment, media for which she
was charged under 124(A) penal code.

Have acts of sedition spiked in India

Over the year acts of sedition cases have increased on its peak between the year 2016 to 2019 the
acts of sedition have raised to 160% according to according to the NCRB whereas conviction falls into
3%.Most of the sedition charges were the ones whose age groups were between 18 to 30.Karnataka
has recorded the highest sedition cases in the year 2019 also few more states were also included
followed by Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh however Jammu and Kashmir was under
its president rule whereas NCRB stated that West Bengal did not provide it's data for the year
2019.2019 was the year which had the maximum rise of sedition acts by Indian citizens. The
Supreme Court also had on various events in which the warned law implementation offices to not
abuse IPC Section 124-A to check free discourse and guided the states to follow the bearings
expressed during Kedarnath versus territory of Bihar preliminary. In 2018 the law commission in a
report said that it's important to protect one nation integrity and it should not use to free speech
right as a tool to criticise the government always. Right of free speech is given to every individual in
the nation but it should not be misused. Free speech should be used carefully to avoid restrictions
and unpleasant events to occur. Under the UAPA, 1,226 cases were registered in 2019 compared to
1,182 in 2018 and 901 in 2017. The higher UAPA cases were found in Manipur (306), followed by 270
in Tamil Nadu, and 255 in J&K. Forty cases were registered under the OSA in both 2019 and 2018
much higher than 18 in 2017.While Congress ruled in Karnataka, two cases were filed in 2018,three
each in 2015 and 2016,and there were no reports in 2014 and 2017.Assam was recorded with 17
sedition cases each in the years of 2018 and 2019 slightly lower than 2017 when it recorded 19 cases
which was the highest in the country for that year. But later Assam saw no case of sedition in 2016
when the BJP came to power. In 2015 too no sedition case was found or filed but in the previous
year only one case was registered. When the imposition of Central rule began sedition cases started
increasing in Jammu and Kashmir where two cases were filed from 2014 to 2017, 12 were found in
2018, the year when it came under Central rule after the PDP-BJP government was not in rule. There
were also 11 cases in the following year. When Jharkhand was under BJP rule in 2018 it recorded the
highest number of sedition cases which was high. However, there was no cases found in Bihar in
2016, 2017 and 2019, it had 16 cases in 2014 and nine in the following year, the highest in the
country during that period, and 17 in 2018.However acts of sedition were less when the BJP
government was not in power.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1) Sedition Law and its Draconian Effects- Geetika Garg

The author has mentioned the sedition laws that were used to control disagreement in Britain, but it
was within the colonies that they assumed their most draconian shape, making a difference to
sustain royal control within the confront of rising Nationalism within the colonies, counting India.
Geetika Garg has stated how the law of sedition has been defined as a constitutional weapon to
defend the state by anticipating an individual from making a sense of ‘disaffection’.

2) Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Study on Sedition Law and the Need to Prevent Its
Misuse- V. ESHWAR ANAND Symbiosis International University, India.

The author has stated how the state is approved to force sensible limitations within

the national intrigued, but the judiciary will look at whether those confinements are authentic or not
and how the section 124A of the Indian Penal Code that deals with sedition has been abused so
much that this has ended up an enormous danger to the freedom of speech and expression.
Exploratory and descriptive type of research methodology has been adopted in this research paper.
In the opinion survey done by the researcher through a questionnaire, a majority of respondents
have suggested repeal of the sedition law.

3) An analysis of sedition law in India- Jhalak Shah and Shantanu Pachauri

The authors have spoken about how the later occasion of conjuring sedition laws in a

few occurrences has once more raised questions on the undemocratic nature and legitimacy of
these laws within the show sacred popular government. The authors have done an investigation on
the application of sedition laws by distinctive courts of India and how they have ended
up obsolete for the display society and the different proposals for its application.

4) LAW OF SEDITION: A CHANGING PARADIGM- Raashi Pathak and Rakesh Roshan

The authors observe through case laws how sedition as a law is unclear in nature

and dictatorial within the application. The contention endeavoured in this article is that when this
law was presented as corrective law, an opportunity for discourse was not a Constitutional ensures. 

5) The Sedition Laws in India with Special Reference to Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India- Mahima
Makhijaand and Asha Sundaram

This paper talks about the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India in detail and
the Subversion laws comparing to it. This is often a really popular case in later times, where the
Mumbai police had captured two ladies, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan in 2012, for
posting purportedly offensive and questionable comments on
Facebook almost the respectability of closing down the city of Mumbai after the passing of a
political pioneer, Bal Thackeray. The offense beneath S.124-A captioned as “Sedition‟ is
closely united to treason-an an offense against the state. With the Graduation of Indian Structure in
1950, Article 19(1) (a) gives to each citizen a crucial right to flexibility of discourse and expression.
With this improvement, Subversion Law contained in Area 124-A comes
with coordinated struggle with principal right under Article 19 (1) (a). The choice in Shreya Singhal
is gigantically imperative within the history of the Preeminent Court for numerous reasons. In
an uncommon occurrence, the Supreme Court has received the extreme step of pronouncing a
censorship law passed by Parliament as inside and out ill-conceived. Moreover, the paper compares
the Indian Subversion laws with the subversion laws of a few nations together with their
current situation. In this consider, an overview has been conducted among
the understudies, teachers, advocates, and judges to know their supposition around the existing
Sedition laws in India additionally their see on the judgment of this case. Therefore, this article
essentially analyses the unyielding laws of rebellion in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.