Name of the author: AYUSH KHARE

Professional Information: 2nd year law student of BA LLB

course at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur

Title : A Need for a re-examination of Section 124-A of IPC:

THE LAW OF SEDITION

Contact Information: Phone number: 9125623984

Whatsapp number: 7266896350

E-mail id : ayushkhare20002@gmail.com

1 of 11
 A Need for a re-examination of Section 124-A of IPC:

THE LAW OF SEDITION

ABSTRACT

Sedition is the act of encouraging rebellion against the government, or an action that promotes
such rebellion, such as through speech or writing. The law of sedition has been imbibed in the
IPC since 19th century but in the recent times there is a drastic rise in the number of cases of
sedition, as a result the courts have expressed their interest in the repeal/amendment of the law.
Five countries (UK, New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia and the USA) have either scrapped or
amended their sedition laws recently. Therefore, a question arises on the continuation of Law of
Sedition in India. This research paper aims to take a subjective view on the law of Sedition in
India and dwells upon its origin, landmark decisions and the data provided by NCRB. Taking
into account several viewpoints, the research paper has provided the need and the changes that
should be brought in the law

2 of 11
Keywords: Historical background of the law, landmark cases, Data on Sedition, Need and Ways
to amend the law

INTRODUCTION

Indian Penal Code was drafted in the year 1860, however Sedition which comes under Section
124A of the IPC, Chapter VI of the IPC was incorporated in the year 1870. This penal provision
was brought in the British Raj to silence the nationalist voices and demands for freedom, this can
be summed up in the words of Justice Ajit Prakash Shah (2017):

“Sedition laws were enacted around the 17th Century in England in a bid to protect the Crown
and the State from any potential uprising. The premise was that people could only have a good
opinion of the government, and a bad opinion was detrimental to the functioning of the
government and the monarchy. It was subsequently introduced in the Indian Penal Code in
1870.”

The first case of Sedition in India was Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose and Ors.1

Age of Consent Act, passed in the year 1891, raised the legal age for sexual intercourse from
women from 10 to 12 years, Joginder Chandra Bose criticized the act through articles in his own
Bengali magazine, ‘Bangobasi’ , he was accused of inciting rebellion through the articles.

The question in this case was of sedition and inciting violence against the Government.
“Disaffection” towards the Government was defined in this case by Chief Justice Petheram as “a
feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred” and included disloyalty towards
the Government.

The second most famous case of sedition was Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak2 brought
in the year 1897. Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote articles in Marathi newspaper ‘Kesari’ where he
criticised British government for their efforts to curb plague in India, he was charged with
Sedition for an attempt to provoke the public against the British government through his articles.

1
(1892) ILR 19 Cal 35 (‘Joginder Chandra Bose’)
2
(1898) ILR 20 All 55 (‘Bal Gangadhar Tilak’)

3 of 11
Tilak was held guilty by a jury composed of nine members. In this case the law of Sedition was
explained for the first time. Justice James Stratchy stated the law in the following terms:

“The offence consists in exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards
the government. It is not the exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion or any sort of
actual disturbance, great or small. Whether any disturbance or outbreak was caused by these
articles is absolutely immaterial”

Apart from Tilak, there are many Indian national heroes who were charged with Sedition, these
include Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Jawaharlal Nehru Maulana Mohammad Ali, Maulana
Shaukat Ali and Shri Shankaracharya were tried jointly in 1921 at Karachi for sedition, at the
height of the Khilafat movement.

Different interpretations have been made by the Federal Court and Privy Council in the due
course of time. In the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs King Emperor3 , the Federal Court
held that “public disorder or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the
gist of the offence.” The judges in this case felt that the sedition offers some kind of resistance or
lawlessness in a country. Therefore, to guarantee the best interests of the citizens, the court also
held that incitement to violence must occur, to be charged for sedition

However, this proposition was overturned by the Privy Council in the case of King Emperor Vs
Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao4 . The Privy Council held that acts like incitement to violence and
insurrection should not be considered while deciding the charges of sedition. One must go by the
definition of the sedition provided by the IPC.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LAW OF SEDITION IN INDEPENDENT

INDIA

During the making of the Constitution of India, K.M Munshi moved an amendment to remove
the word ‘sedition’ from the draft constitution as it would become a ground to restrict the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Thus, the word ‘sedition’ is not present
in the Constitution in India since its enactment and Article 19(1)(a) gave absolute freedom of

3
(1942) FCR 48 (‘Niharendu Dutt Majumdar’)
4
AIR 1947 PC 82 (‘Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao’)

4 of 11
speech and expression. However, sedition continued to be an offence under Section 124-A of the
IPC.

The courts of our country have given various interpretations to this law in various cases. The
judgements of these landmark cases help us to understand the purpose, limits and loopholes of
the law.

● Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State 1951 Cri LJ 449

In this case, the High court held that Section 124-A is a restriction on freedom of speech and
expression, thus invalidated the provision on the basis of contravention of fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression. As a result, this led to the passing off the first amendment to
the constitution of India. The first amendment to the Constitution of India was brought in the
year 1951, it empowered the State put curbs in the form of “reasonable restrictions” on right to
free speech.

● Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955

Kedar Nath Singh delivered a speech in which he criticized the government and advocated for
the Forward Communist Party ,this speech led to his conviction for sedition and public mischief.
The Supreme Court, in this case upheld the validity of Sedition law but restricted its scope to
prevent its misuse, the five-judge bench said that “any act that had the effect of subverting the
Government by violent means or creating public disorder would come within the definition of
sedition.” It also upheld Section 505 (statements conducive to public mischief) as
constitutionally valid.

● In the year 1973 Sedition was made a cognizable offence. It was through the new Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which came into force in 1974, repealing the colonial-era
1898 Code of Criminal Procedure.

● Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 1987 AIR 149

5 of 11
It was in this case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the being an author of a seditious
literature is not necessary, mere distribution or circulation of a seditious material is also
sufficient for an arrest and subsequent conviction, depending on the facts of the case.

● Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214

In this case, the appellants were arrested for shouting slogans in a crowded area after their duties
were over. However, the slogans did not affect the normal working of the people and everyone
carried out their day-to-day activities with ease. Analyzing the facts of the case, the Court held
that the casual raising of slogans by two random individuals without any other overt
activity attached, like carrying out a procession, which did not lead to any disruption of
public order and no intention of causing violence cannot be said to be invoking an offense
as serious sedition.

● Pijush Piyush Babun Guha vs State Of Chhattisgarh (2011)1 SCC 189

Dr. Binayak Sen was accused of helping insurgents. He passed notes from his from his patient (a
Maoist prisoner) to someone outside the jail; he was held for Sedition. Therefore, in this case it
was clear that possession of seditious literature can also be grounds for punishment under
this law.

● Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam (2011) 3 SCC 377

Arup Bhuyan is a member of a banned organisation named ‘United Liberation Front of Asom’
.The only evidence that could be brought against him was his confessional statement made to the
Superintendent of Police.

The Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a
person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public
disorder by violence or incitement to violence.

● Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra 2015 CriLJ 3561

During an Anna Hazare protest against corruption, Aseem Trivedi, a controversial political
cartoonist and artists, drew cartoons of the Parliament and National Emblem in an objectionable
manner. It was held by the court that cartoons, caricatures, visual representations, signs, etc. can

6 of 11
be witty, humorous, sarcastic or even express anger, but the right of speech and expression
allows one to express one’s indignation towards the Government. As long as the cartoons, etc.
do not incite violence or have the tendency to create any public disorder, it is not sedition.

DATA ON SEDITION CASES IN INDIA

Crime records play a vital role in the scheme of police working for prevention and detection of
crime National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) was set-up in 1986 to function as a repository of
information on crime and criminals so as to assist the investigators in linking crime to the
perpetrators based on the recommendations of the Tandon Committee, National Police
Commission (1977-1981) and the MHA’s Task force (1985). 5

The available data with NCRB on Sedition in India is from the year 2014- 2019.

● 326 sedition cases have been filed in India from 2014 to 2019; out of which only 6 are
convicted
● There is an increase of 97.87% of registered cases since 2014, with 47 cases in the year
2014, 30 in 2015, 35 in 2016 ,51 in 2017, 70 in 2018 and 93 cases in the year 2019.
●
Rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in the year 2019 from 33.3 % in the year 20166

The court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar held that criticising the government
“in strong terms,” or “very strong speech…using very vigorous words in a writing” cannot not be
considered seditious

Yet, at least 405 individuals were charged with sedition for criticising national leaders and
governments over the last decade.

Similarily, in the case of Balwant Singh and anr v. State of Punjab7, the court said “casual raising
of slogans” cannot be considered to be sedition unless those slogans “created any law and order
problems” or intend to “incite people to create disorder”.
5
ncrb.gov.in/en
6 https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/
7
AIR 1987 SC 1080 (‘Balwant Singh’)

7 of 11
Despite this judgement, a total of 1310 individuals, or 12% of individuals, have been charged
over the last decade for shouting slogans—from hailing Pakistan to those in favour of jailed
activist Sharjeel Imam.8

Therefore, observing the above-mentioned data, it is evident that this law is highly misused by
political parties across the country to silence their criticisms, inefficiency, lacunas in their
working etc.

NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 124-A OF IPC

India is the largest democracy in the world, the word democracy itself means ‘rule by the
people’, which means each person has a say in the functioning of the government. In such a
country, presence of such laws is not only opposed to the concept of democracy, but also an
immense threat to right to freedom of speech and expression, right to dissent.

Supreme Court being the custodial of fundamental rights of citizens, at various instances have
commented on the presence of this law in India. On 15th July 2021, CJI N.V. Ramana made a
remark on sedition law, “The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of
wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself”. Further the bench remarked, “Unfortunately,
continuance of this law after 75 years...This government has been scrapping many obsolete laws.
We don’t know why they are not looking into this law? Continuance of this law is a serious threat
on functioning of institutions and individuals’ liberty ”. In the case of Vinod Dua v. Union of
India, the bench commented, “A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures
undertaken by the government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to
violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public
disorder; and that it is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or
intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that Sections 124A and
505 of the IPC3 must step in"

Due to the increasing misuse rate of the law by various governments, India is losing its
democracy and freedom, this is evident in Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index. In
Democracy Index published by Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) India’s rank fell from 40(in

8
https://www.article-14.com/

8 of 11
the year 2010) to 53(in the year 2020). Similarly in the World Press Freedom Index, India’s rank
fell from 122(in the year 2010) to 142(in the year 2020). Presence of this law also bounds the
growth and progress of the country as there is no room for dissent/disagreement with the
government functioning.

The world is going through an age of instant communication, apart from the dangers from the
insurgents, such as the Maoists insurgents (who openly advocate the overthrow of the elected
government), the danger from the secessionist arguments on social media cannot be undermined,
as slogans and arguments are a prelude to subsequent events, it is quite evident in revolutionary
movements such as Nazism, Fascism and Communism which gained their momentum through
slogans. Therefore, the law of Sedition, serves as a tool to confront these insurgents, to ensure
the smooth functioning of the state. However, one cannot ignore the fact about the misuse of the
law by various political parties to benefit their interests. Therefore, a time has come where there
is an urgent need to amend the law in such a way so that there is enough room for
dissent/disagreement with the government, at the same time, a State is protected from the danger
from secessionist arguments and insurgents.

CHANGES THAT CAN BE BROUGHT IN SECTION 124-A OF IPC

● The offense must be committed against ‘The State and its working’ established by law
and not the ‘Government’. This would include all ‘Anti- India’ campaigns, slogans,
disruption of lawful working and procedures such as unlawful taking down of an elected
government etc. In this way government will also be open for criticism so that it can
work in an efficient and effective way.
● The courts at various instances have iterated that a person should be held guilty for
sedition only when his/her speech or words have actually incited violence or hatred. This
point must be taken into consideration while amending the law.
● The law must define the scope of disaffection, hatred and contempt, so that the courts
have some sought of direction to follow in the interpretation of these words. The British
era judge Arthur Strachey had warned: “Disaffection may be excited in a thousand
different ways. You have to look through the form, and look to the real object: you have to

9 of 11
 consider whether the form of a published or a spoken material is genuine or whether it
has been adopted merely to disguise the real seditious intention of the writer/speaker.”
● Presently the law is cognizable in nature, it should be converted to non-cognizable.
Converting it into non-cognizable offense will provide the police an opportunity to
enquire whether the actual offense has been committed

CONCLUSION

The law of Sedition in India has been one of the most controversial laws since Independence.
Different views range across India, while some call for complete abolition of the law, others
assert to retain the law with a more vigorous implementation. Many others, have also advocated
to retain the law but in a more defined way to maintain a balance between the security of the
country and fundamental rights of its citizens.

The courts of India have given various interpretation to this law to suit the best interests of the
country and its citizens but its misuse by various Governments in India is increasing day by day
Therefore, though the sedition law is still needed in our country but there is an immediate need to
amend this law because the motive behind Section 124-A has changed over the course of years(
in the colonial era it was passed to suppress Indians whereas in an Independent India it should be
used to protect the State from any unlawful hindrance by its citizens).

10 of 11
11 of 11