Abstract

This paper is about the sedition law that is being practised in India since the colonial era. while the
literal meaning of the word sedition is to incite a group against the authority of the state through
speech or conduct. It is punishable under section 124A of IPC( ). In this paper, we will discuss the
different perspectives of sedition law. The paper mentions how technology is interfering with the law
and what is a jurisprudential aspect of the law. the paper also provides with opinion and take on
international human rights law on law with a comparative study between the UK, US, and Australia
with sedition law in India. The paper illustrates the application of sedition law with its constitutional
validity illustrated with landmark judgements.

Introduction

India is progressing significantly across the board in terms of legislation, but a good law that serves as
a means for national progression and development is more important for a country's development
than merely its legislation. Even though the laws initially served to suppress the Indian subjects,
several laws with colonial origins are still in effect today. Many colonial-era laws, such as the sedition
law, are the subject of intense debate. Sedition legislation generally refers to persuading others by
speech, deeds, or behaviour to rebel against the state or other authorities. Sedition is defined under
sec 124 A of the Indian Penal Code "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”( ). In essence, it says that
anyone who stirs up unrest or violent disobedience against the government by their actions or words
is breaking the law.

Historical background

The initial formulation of the law of sedition was introduced in colonial India in 1837 by Thomas
Babington Macaulay in clause 113 of the Draft Indian Penal Code (also known as the "Draft Penal
Code")(Arvind Ganachari, Evolution of the Law of “Sedition” in the Context of the Indian Freedom
Struggle in Nationalism And Social Reform In A Colonial Situation 54 (2005)). However, the section on
sedition was left out of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when it was finally enacted after 20 years, and Sir
James Fitz James Stephen, the Government of India's Law Secretary and the man responsible for
designing the Indian Evidence Act at the time called this an "unaccountable mistake." There are
several reasons for the exclusion, but some people thought that the British government wished to
empower the press with more robust and all-encompassing methods in addition to stronger
preventative and regulatory measures.

The rise of Wahabi activity in the years preceding 1870 caused the British to recognise the urgent
need for a law modification to enable the government to deal with seditious activity more effectively.
As mutinous activities against the British increased, it was recognised that sedition needed to be
made a serious offence. At the turn of the 20th century, with nationalism on the rise, the bill
containing the law of sedition was finally passed. Sedition was added as a crime under IPC 124 on
November 25, 1870, and it persisted unaltered until February 18, 1898.

The Indian Sedition Act of 1898 strengthened the law even further in response to the Indian National
Congress's demand for self-rule. After the law was passed, the definition of "sedition" was
broadened to include any actions or words that might be seen as subversive or opposed to the
British government. It was regularly used to suppress political dissent and the freedom of speech.
( Soutik Biswas, "Why is India's sedition law controversial?" BBC News, February 26, 2016,
available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616.)

To maintain law and order and halt the spread of racial animosity, the sedition law was kept in force
in India after it attained independence in 1947. Nevertheless, it was still employed to put an end to
political opposition and dissent. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Indian Supreme Court
limited the application of the sedition law while upholding the constitutionality of the law in 1962.
The court determined that seditious speech or expression only includes direct calls for violence or
incitement to riot. (Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.)

The sedition law was nonetheless used to suppress political dissent and free speech despite this
ruling. In several high-profile cases in recent years, the sedition law has been used to prosecute
journalists, activists, and students who have spoken out against the government or expressed
opposing viewpoints. Compared to other offences, seditious offences are known to carry a sentence
that is particularly harsh under the IPC. It is a crime that is punishable, cognizable, non-bailable,
cannot be compounded that can be tried in a court of sessions. One could receive a seven-year
prison sentence if found guilty of seditious acts. When someone is accused of sedition, getting
released on bail is very challenging. Due to the highly subjective nature of the offence, courts must
determine in each case whether there is a threat to the stability of the State or its democratic order.
A repressive government can only undermine the guarantee of free speech if such a decision is left to
legislative or executive action.

It is criticised that the sedition law violates the fundamental right to free speech because it is an
outdated, undemocratic law. They have demanded its repeal or amendment to stop it from being
used to repress dissent and government criticism.

JURISPRUDENACE AND SEDITION

Jurisprudence, the study of legal theory and philosophy, has a big influence on how sedition laws are
interpreted and applied. Sedition laws have their historical roots in the treason and sedition laws
that were enacted in ancient Rome to protect the stability of the state. Because they have the
potential to stifle dissent and free speech, sedition laws have sparked discussion in the modern era.

Important legal rulings have influenced the interpretation and application of sedition laws. For
instance, in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India established the
criteria for determining whether a speech or expression constitutes sedition. The court ruled that a
statement is only seditious if it encourages violence, threatens to cause civil unrest, or disturbs the
peace.1

The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as
unconstitutional in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The court deemed the provision,
which made "offensive" online speech illegal, to be overbroad and ambiguous, with the potential to
stifle dissent and free speech.23

The balance between national security and freedom of expression is a crucial consideration in the
jurisprudence of sedition law. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which protects the right to free speech and association except for those strict limitations that
are necessary to uphold the law, national security, or the rights of others. The jurisprudential
principles of necessity and proportionality require that any limitations on free speech be justified and
reasonable about the harm they are intended to avert3
 1. Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
2. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, United Nations,
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

CONSTITUIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The Indian Sedition Law has sparked considerable debate and controversy from a constitutional
standpoint. It has been argued by some critics how this law of sedition is inconsistent with the values
of the preamble especially the value of liberty and fraternity. The way it restrains the freedom of
speech and expression which is a fundamental right and is considered necessary for the proper
functioning of Indian democracy and the way it curtails some forms of speech action violates the
value of liberty and the way it has been used to suppress voices violates the value of fraternity which
is based on mutual respect and understanding among the citizens. in the case of Kanhaiya Kumar v
state of nct of Delhi 2021(, a student leader was held liable for performing seditious activities as he
made some statements in the protest against the execution of aflaz guru but the court held that
mere stating of unpopular opinions does not account to sedition as it is not inciting any violence. the
court also stated that the law should not be used to suppress legitimate expressions of opinion and
the same was held in another case (Balwant Singh v State of Punjab 1962) where it was held mere
sloganeering does not amount to sedition.

This is considered to be one of those laws where the right of freedom of speech and expression
granted by Art 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution can be restricted .even during the framing of the
constitution the constituent assembly members opposed the inclusion of sedition as they felt it
would prove to be a restriction on freedom of speech and expression Art 19(1)(a) of the Indian
constitution as they also believed how this law can be turned into a weapon to suppress legitimate
thoughts and even right to protest. Even in the colonial era when this law was made rebellious
activities and speeches against the British government could be stopped. The law is also criticized
due to its vagueness as it is very difficult to interpret through its text what constitutes seditious
speech or action and that’s how the government is believed to abuse this law to stifle dissent and
criticism. Even in the case of Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State of Punjab, the honourable Punjab high
court held that the freedom of speech and expression provided by art 19(1)(a)of the Indian
constitution is contravened by section 124A of IPC and therefore is unconstitutional and somewhat
similar judgements are passed in many cases such as ram Nandan v. state of Uttar Pradesh where it
was held how the sec 124A of IPC is highly questionable and therefore should be repealed at the
earliest. India is a democratic country where every person is heard and no one’s discriminated but
this law particularly targets the individuals of a marginalised group like Dalits, tribal communities
whose right to participate in the democratic process and freedom of speech and expression are
further restrained.

Sec 124 A of IPC not only restraints the art 19 (1)(a) of the Indian constitution but it also restraints
some aspects of art 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution. right to equality provided under Art 14 of
the Indian constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of
the law to all persons (Article 14 - Right to Equality" - Indian Constitution.). there have been
many instances where this law was selectively used to arrest and prosecute certain individuals for r
expressing their opinion (Kanhaiya Kumara case 2016) or criticizing the government while others
were allowed to do so and remained unpunished for the same offence. Therefore, it is the volition of
Art 14 as it denies the right of equal protection of the law to citizens.
Even there is a recent case of Sharjeel Imama 2020 where he was charged with sedition because
allegedly, he raised some anti-national slogans the verdict is yet to come as the case is still ongoing.

Art 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all individuals and
it includes the right to free speech also but as sedition curtails certain forms of expression therefore
the compatibility of law with Art 21 is not definite. It violates Art 21 of the Indian constitution due to
some of the reasons previously also. the very first reason is that the vague and broad language of
this leads to its misuse where it is used to suppress the voices and opinions of journalists and
activists who can expose the wrongdoings of the government. This leads to suppression of the right
to free speech (Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar)which is a clear violation of the right to personal
liberty under Art 21 .second reason is that under this offence a person can be arrested and detained
without any due process of law though maximum punishment of sedition is life imprisonment .there
is no proper information as to what constitutes to seditious act and therefore it can be misused to
wrongfully arrest or detain someone. so it violates Art 21 as it includes the right to due process of
law.

We can rightly see how section 124A of IPC violates the golden triangle of fundamental rights (art
14,19,21) and the values enriched by the preamble of the constitution as it violates fundamental
rights and creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. though it is argued by the supporters of the
sedition law that it is necessary to maintain public order, national security and integrity of the nation.
but the supreme court also through its various judgments has emphasized that the should only be
used in cases where there is a clear incitement to violence and not just on opinions and how we
need to maintain a balance between the right to free speech and the need to maintain public order. (
The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that the right to free speech must be
balanced with the need to maintain public order and protect national security, as
seen in cases like Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 and Arup Bhuiyan
v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377.
)

CRIMINAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

Sedition is a criminal offence in India that is defined under sec 124A of IPC “as any act that attempts
to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards government
established by law. This offence of sedition under IPC is non-bailable (the accused cannot be released
on bail unless the court grants permission) with the punishment of life imprisonment or up to 3 years
of imprisonment along with a fine. The law was made to protect the sovereignty and security of the
nation. There are certain exceptions to this law of sedition under IPC they are -unless the criticism of
the government is sone for incitement of violence it is not punishable (In Shreya Singhal v. Union
of India – The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that one cannot be tried for sedition unless
their speech or action or words used by them is offensive or inappropriate. Only the words & speech
which cause inducement to imminent violence can be penalized. A mere use of words against the
government however unpleasant does not constitute the offence of sedition) and if disapproval is
made just to obtain alteration from the government, then it does not amount to sedition.

The procedure for the investigation and trial of sedition is governed by the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC). The CrPC states that a sedition case can be initiated when a person makes a
complaint or when the police become aware of a crime that is illegal and needs to be prosecuted.
The police can then open an investigation after filing a first information report (FIR). Throughout the
course of the investigation, the police will compile evidence, including witness statements and other
documents that support the sedition allegation. When there is sufficient proof, the police will file a
charge sheet with the court and the accused person will be required to appear. A sedition case is
tried in court, and the accused has a right to a fair trial. Before the prosecution presents its evidence,
the accused will have a chance to speak up for themselves and argue their case. Following that, the
court will make a decision based on the presented evidence and pertinent legal provisions. According
to the CrPC, a person accused of sedition has rights, such as the right to legal counsel, a prompt trial,
the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to offer evidence in support of those rights.
Additionally, the accused has the right to appeal any unfavourable decision.

International human rights law on sedition

International human rights law protects the freedom to express one's thoughts and opinions,
including the freedom to criticise the government or its policies and holds opposing views.
Nevertheless, sedition-related laws are illegal in many countries, including India, and they can be
applied to censor free speech and put down legitimate dissent. As a result, international
organisations are growing more concerned about the misuse of sedition laws to quell political dissent
and criticism.

1. According to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
, everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression, which includes the freedom to access
information and ideas without restriction through any media. Similar to this, Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), (International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), art. 19) to which India is a party,
protects the freedom of speech and opinion, subject only to particular restrictions like those
necessary to uphold public order, national security, or other people's rights.

The UN has called for their reform or repeal due to its concern over the use of sedition laws to
censor free speech. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights to freedom of opinion and expression, sedition laws can be used to stifle free speech
and criminalise valid dissent. International human rights norms are violated by this. In a report to the
UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur suggested that laws that criminalise sedition be
repealed or modified to ensure that they do not restrict the freedom of expression and opinion.
(Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, UN Human Rights Council, 27th session, A/HRC/27/51, 4 June
2014)

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), a non-governmental organisation devoted to the

promotion and defence of the rule of law, has made a similar call for the repeal of sedition laws. In its
report on sedition laws, the ICJ noted that these regulations are frequently ambiguous and
overbroad, leading to their abuse to stifle political dissent and free speech. Additionally, to bring
sedition-related laws into compliance with international human rights norms, the ICJ has argued for
their revision or repeal. (International Commission of Jurists, Sedition, A Legal Briefing (2019).)

INTERFERENCE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATTERS RELATED TO SEDITION

The increased use of technology has had a significant impact on the free speech and anti-seditious
activity provisions of international law. Only very specific exceptions, such as those required to
protect public order, national security, or other people's rights, are allowed under Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.

The widespread use of social media platforms and other online communication tools has given rise
to worries about the spread of false information, hate speech, and the potential for online content to
incite violence. As a result of criticism of the government's use of surveillance technology to monitor
and censor online content, worries about government overreach have surfaced in India.

Using AI and machine learning algorithms to monitor online content has also brought up questions
about potential bias and mistakes in the identification of seditious or offensive content. Innocent
people have occasionally been mistakenly classified as potential threats by these algorithms, and
legitimate speech has occasionally been mistaken for seditious or offensive.

Technology, on the other hand, has also been used to defend the right to free speech and to support
those who are being accused of sedition. For instance, secure messaging apps and virtual private
networks (VPNs) can help people communicate privately while avoiding government surveillance.
Digital rights groups have also used technology to monitor instances of government censorship and
surveillance as well as to legally and technically support those who are charged with sedition.

In 2021, a public dispute erupted between Twitter and the Indian government over the deletion of
tweets that criticised the way the government handled farmer protests. The ongoing tension
between the right to free expression and the government's desire to censor online content and
protect national security is highlighted by this.

[1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19, Dec. 10, 1948, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III),
available at https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. [2] Ambika Khanna
& Rohini Lakshané, India’s Surveillance State: An Update, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace (Oct. 28, 2020), https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/10/28/india-s-
surveillance-state-update-pub-83017. [3] See, e.g., Nicholas Confessore et al., Inside Twitter’s
Decision to Cut Off Trump, N.Y. Times (Jan. 21, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/technology/twitter-trump-ban.html. [4] See, e.g.,
Access Now, https://www.accessnow.org/ (last visited May 9, 2023). [5] Pranav Dixit, Twitter
vs. Modi: India’s Government Is Trying to Censor Tweets Critical of Its Handling of Farmers’
Protests, Protocol (Feb. 10, 2021), https://www.protocol.com/twitter-modi-india-farmers-
protests

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEDITION

UNITED STATE

The legal definition of seditious speech in the United States has been a contentious topic since the
Sedition Act of 1798. Publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" that was meant to smear
the government or incite hostility or contempt for it was prohibited by law. But because the law
violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, it was challenged.

In the case of United States v. Hudson and Goodwin (1812), the Supreme Court ruled that the
Sedition Act was unconstitutional and that the government cannot prosecute speech or writing that
criticises the government, even if it is false, scandalous, or malicious. Despite this decision,
throughout American history, individuals have been accused of political dissent using sedition laws.
People who spoke out against the war effort during World War I were subject to prosecution under
both the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917. Eugene V. Debs, a socialist and labour
leader, was sentenced to ten years in prison for making an anti-war speech in the most well-known
case.

Some states still have sedition laws on the books, but they are rarely used. In the wake of the January
6, 2021 uprising at the US Capitol, the use of sedition laws has recently come under renewed
scrutiny. Others have opposed it, arguing that doing so would be unconstitutional and stifle political
dissent, even though some lawmakers and legal experts have called for the use of sedition laws to
prosecute those who are responsible for the uprising.

The government may still pursue legal action against the offender even if a violent act or violent
incitement does not meet the requirements for sedition. Additionally, the tenets of the First
Amendment still apply when speech is critical of the government.

 United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)

 Espionage Act of 1917, Pub.L. 65-24, 40 Stat. 217, enacted June 15, 1917
 Sedition Act of 1918, Pub.L. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918
 Eugene V. Debs, 248 U.S. 147 (1918)
 "Sedition laws in the United States," National Constitution Centre, Accessed
May 9, 2023.

UNITED KINGDOM

Laws prohibiting seditious speech have been in existence in the UK since the Middle Ages. Speaking
out or acting in a way that is believed to incite rebellion or resistance against the government is
illegal in the UK under sedition laws. The most recent UK sedition law, the Sedition Act of 2009,
replaced sedition as a common law offence with the offence of "encouragement of terrorism." Any
statements that are likely to incite or induce another person to commit terrorism are prohibited by
this law, regardless of whether a specific terrorist act is encouraged or induced.

Those who spoke out against the government or the monarchy were subject to prosecution under
the common law offence of sedition before the Sedition Act of 2009. As a result of his criticism of the
government's policies, journalist and political reformer William Cobbett was accused of sedition in
1810, and his case is noteworthy. After the trial was widely criticised and scrutinised by the public,
Cobbett was ultimately found not guilty.

Due to the threat, they pose to the right to free speech and dissent, sedition laws in the UK have
become a topic of discussion in recent years. The use of the Sedition Act of 2009 to prosecute people
for making statements that are critical of the government or its policies has drawn criticism from
human rights and civil liberties organisations. For instance, in 2018, the human rights organisation
Liberty disputed the legal basis for the prosecution of a man for making online criticisms of the
government's immigration policies.

[1] "Sedition Act 2009," Legislation.gov.uk, accessed May 9, 2023,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/4/contents.

[2] "William Cobbett," Spartacus Educational, accessed May 9, 2023,

https://spartacus-educational.com/PRcobbett.htm.
[3] "Liberty challenges 'encouragement of terrorism' charges for the first time,"
Liberty, October 3, 2018, https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/liberty-
challenges-encouragement-terrorism-charges-first-time/.

Since the time of the colonial government, Australia has had seditious laws. The British colonial
government of Australia passed the country's first sedition law in 1824 to stifle political dissent.1

Sedition is defined as behaviour that calls for the overthrow of the government, the amendment of
the Constitution, or the use of force or violence to further political goals in the Commonwealth
Criminal Code Act 1995, which governs sedition laws in contemporary Australia.2

There has been much discussion about the Australian sedition law, particularly in light of its possible
effects on free speech. In 2005, the Howard administration made changes to the sedition law,
enlarging its scope and toughening the penalties for offences connected to sedition.3

Asserting that these amendments could be used to stifle political dissent and intimidate journalists
and other public commentators, civil liberties organisations, media outlets, and legal experts sharply
criticised them.4

The "Bali Nine" are a group of Australian nationals who tried to smuggle heroin into Australia in 2005
and were caught in Indonesia. One of the most well-known cases involving Australia's sedition law is
theirs.5

There have been questions about the extraterritorial application of the sedition law because some of
the accused in the Bali Nine case allegedly made comments that could have been interpreted as
advocating the overthrow of the Indonesian government.6

In the end, however, the sedition charges against the Bali Nine were dropped, and they were found
guilty and sentenced on drug trafficking charges.7

Due to government claims that the provisions were unnecessary and had not been used in recent
years, Australia's sedition law was repealed in 2017.8

However, it is still illegal in Australia under other criminal laws to engage in certain speech or conduct
that could be construed as seditious or to advocate the use of violence to further political goals.9

1. A. Colquhoun, ‘Sedition in Colonial Australia’ (2018) 19(2) Media and Arts Law
Review 178.
2. Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, s 80.2.
3. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2005 (Cth).
4. J. Saul, ‘The Sedition Law and Australian Democracy’ (2006) 31(1) Alternative
Law Journal 6.
5. R v Chan (2006) 154 A Crim R 21.
6. Ibid.
7. A. Kelly, ‘Bali Nine: Timeline of Events’ (2019) ABC News, accessed 5 May 2023.
8. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Act 2017 (Cth).
9. Australian Federal Police, ‘Terrorism Offences’ (AFP, accessed 5 May 2023).
Different levels and types of seditious laws exist in various countries around the world. Many
countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and India, have these laws in
force.

The Sedition Act of 1798 was the most famous sedition law in the United States. The Supreme Court
eventually determined that it was unconstitutional in 1812 because it infringed on the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech. 1 Although sedition laws have been used to prosecute
people throughout American history, particularly during times of war, they are rarely used today.

The crime of sedition was abolished in the UK in 2009 by the Coroners and Justice Act.2Sedition laws,
which were later repealed, were used as a means of retaliation against those whose words or deeds
were perceived to incite rebellion against the government or to cause a commotion. The final
sedition case to be successfully prosecuted in the UK took place in 1972.3

Australia's sedition laws were modified by the National Security Legislation Amendment Act, which
was passed in 2010.4 Before the reform, sedition laws were used to punish those who advocated for
the overthrow of the government or supported hostile acts against the country. The 2010 reform
aimed to limit the use of sedition laws and ensure that they are only applied to speech or actions
that genuinely endanger the nation's security.5

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code codifies sedition laws, which have been applied to suppress
political dissent and criticism of the government in India. 6 The law has come under fire for being
vague and overbroad as well as for being used to muzzle political rivals and stifle free speech.7

1. United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812).

2. Coroners and Justice Act 2009, c. 25, §73.
3. "Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel," Crown Prosecution Service, accessed
May 9, 2023, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sedition-and-seditious-and-
defamatory-libel.
4. National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2010, c. 52.
5. "Sedition Laws in Australia," Law Council of Australia, accessed May 9, 2023,
https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/policy-agenda/publications/submissions/sedition-
laws-in-australia.
6. Indian Penal Code, §124A.
7. "Sedition in India: Time to Scrap A Colonial-era Law That No Democracy Should
Have," Amnesty International India, accessed May 9, 2023,
https://amnesty.org.in/sedition-in-india-time-to-scrap-a-colonial-era-law-that-no-
democracy-should-have/.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

From the time of the origination of sedition law, we have seen how there have been many
discrepancies in its application. in the British era, its application was mindfully kept vague and
uncertain as it was used to suppress the voices of the masses whenever the masses were against
them. But even today where India is referred to as one of the biggest democracies still sedition law is
used to suppress the voices of the people against the government. Due to the need to balance
freedom of speech, public order, and national security, seditious laws continue to be a hotly debated
subject in many countries. While some countries no longer have anti-sedition laws, others do,
though with varying degrees of enforcement After all the research on this topic, it can be concluded
that it does not need amendment rather it needs to be removed from our laws as India cannot be
referred to as a democratic country if people here are not even allowed to voice out their dissents.
This is the only way through which we can put an end to its misuse.