Raghavgrover1907@gmail.

com Raghav Grover +91-8368942216

“Sedition laws in India: Historical Development and Conceptual Aspects”

Cambridge dictionary defines Sedition as “a language or behaviour intended to persuade

other people to oppose their government and change it, sometimes by using violence”
Sedition Law is a draconic, archaic legislation which saw its inception in India during the British
colonial era – which was a tool at their disposal to quell or suppress any degree of opposition
or dissent of the British policies, most notably the arrests of Mahatma Gandhi and Bal
Gangadhar Tilak were done on grounds of sedition. The drafters of the Indian constitution, by
the efforts of K.M. Munshi and Bhupinder Singh Mann, were cautious enough to preclude
sedition from it. However, this law made a re-appearance in the Indian constitution via the
first constitutional amendment and has since remained. Originally, Section 124A, found its
way into the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in 1898, made sedition a criminal offence. Section
124A specifies words such as “hatred”, “contempt”, “disaffection”, “disloyalty” and “enmity”
or inciting the said emotions towards the government which are a consequence of any act
undertaken or words, spoken or written, or any expression by a person or a group of persons.
However, the section clearly states that mere criticism of government policies or
administration methodologies with an intent to improve the situation and not with an intent
to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection are beyond the purview of this section. With the
controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (C.A.A), 2019 coming into force, an approximately
3000 people were incarcerated on the grounds of sedition. The three controversial farm law
bills saw the number of people being arrested increase by 10%. Thus, this has revived the
debate around the highly contentious article 124A.
In Ram Nandan vs State of U.P. (1958), the validity of Section 124A was challenged on grounds
of it being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution. A similar contention was
raised in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962). The apex court ruled
that law can only be applied in rare cases of violence and where the security and sovereignty
of the state is threatened. In 1995, the Supreme Court held in Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs State
of Punjab that mere raising of slogans was beyond the scope of Section 124A unless violence
is a direct and a foreseeable result of the same. Similar ratio decidendi has been held by the
apex court in the cases of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Common
Cause vs Union of India (2018).
In recent times, since the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has come into power at the
centre, the debate around sedition has picked up with more enthusiasm. According to a study
by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 326 cases of sedition were filed between 2014-
19. Although the conviction rate in sedition cases is one of the lowest (3%) – the trend across
the years is pernicious. The data by NCRB, for instance, shows that sedition cases have risen
from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019 – a whopping 163% rise. Sedition has been used as a tool to
harass any individual(s) or group(s) who are critical of the government, journalists in
particular. For example, a case of sedition was slapped on NDTV journalist, Vinod Dua – who,
in his YouTube show had expressed critical comments about PM Narendra Modi and the
Raghavgrover1907@gmail.com Raghav Grover +91-8368942216

Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and their overall abysmal management of the Covid-19 crisis.
However, the apex court dismissed the case as the comments merely expressed disapproval
and did not intend to incite violence or unrest. Similarly, in State vs Disha A. Ravi, more
popularly known as the Greta Thunberg toolkit case, Disha Ravi and two other journalists
were incarcerated on a non-bailable offence for allegedly colluding with a pro-khalistani
organisation to defame India on a global scale. The toolkit posted by teenage climate activist;
Greta Thunberg was used as sufficient evidence to support such an action against the three
journalists. The court ordered for the accused to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. One
Lakh with a direction to attend all court proceedings. Similarly, for their posts and cartoons
on social media – two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla
were charged with sedition. Similarly, Patricia Mukhim was charged with a case of sedition by
Headman and Secretary of Dorbar Shnong, Shillong for her post on Facebook. Zakir Hussain
and Nissar Ahmed Khan were charged with sedition charges on account of demeaning
conversation criticizing the Indian armed forces. These are just few instances where the
government has used sedition as a tool to demean, harass and torture any elements who
have been critical of the government and its policies. In the case of public interest litigation
filed against former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Farooq Abdullah – Justice
Chandrachud reiterated the stance of the court that any views expressed which are critical
and dissent of the government’s policy without any intent to cause any unrest or violence
cannot be termed as seditious. Sedition is an archaic law, which has long over-run its course.
It has been used in a domineering fashion – to suppress and stifle any dissent and to present
a very rosy picture of the government.
In conclusion, sedition laws and misuse of Section 124A by authorities and governments sets
a very dangerous precedent and over the last century or so, since the British colonial era, have
been used to stifle any dissent and opposition. It seeks to eliminate all dissent and encourages
totalitarianism. Freedom of expression and the right to free speech are the cornerstone of a
healthy living democracy and sign of a growing nation. Thus, this draconian law which gets its
place in Section 124A of the IPC – needs to be reviewed. The Legislature and judiciary should
work in cahoots to ensure that this archaic primordial law witnesses its demise and the right
of freedom, expression and personal liberty of all citizens is upheld. Rather than stifling any
dissent or criticism, the governments should focus on using such criticism to get feedback to
improve the policies, framework, planning process and overall administration of the nation.
Stifling any dissent or criticism would make such dissenting individuals’ resolve even further.
A healthy democracy is one which does not shy away from any criticism, rather uses the same
to improve and ameliorate the overall health of the nation for the benefit of all

Written by: Raghav Grover