Sedition

By Dr Deepak Sharma
 279th Report, the Law Commission of
India
• In its 279th Report, the Law Commission of India has recommended
the retention of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, commonly
known as the Law of Sedition, along with enhanced punishment for
the offense in the name of national security.
 What is Sedition?
• The Section 124A defines sedition as:
• An offence committed when “any person 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”.
• Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt
or disaffection, will not constitute an offense.
• Sedition is a non-bailable offense.
• Punishment under Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to
a life term with/without a fine
 Historical Perspective

• Section 124A of the IPC was introduced during the British Raj in 1870
to suppress dissent and protest against the colonial government.
• The then British government in India feared that religious preachers
on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the
government.
• Particularly after the successful suppression of the Wahabi/Waliullah
Movement by the British, the need was felt for such law.
• Throughout the Raj, this section was used to suppress activists in
favor of national independence, including Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi,
both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.
 Two notable interpretations which added to the ambiguity
surrounding the sedition law

• Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)

• In this case, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a prominent freedom fighter, was
charged with sedition for writing articles in a Marathi weekly called
Kesari that invoked Shivaji and were seen as inciting disaffection
towards the British government.
• The court held that sedition encompassed the act of exciting
disaffection towards the government, even if it did not incite rebellion
or violence.
• This interpretation broadened the scope of the offense to include
political hatred of the government.
• Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor (1942): Federal
Court.
• The court acquitted the accused, and Chief Justice Sir Maurice Gwyer
explained that the essence of sedition lies in public disorder or the
reasonable anticipation thereof.
• According to this interpretation, sedition would be committed only
when there is incitement to violence or disorder.
 Present Situation of Sedition Cases
• What are the Findings of the NCRB?
• Out of 475 sedition cases registered in the country between 2014 and
2021, Assam accounted for 69 cases (14.52%).
• After Assam, the most number of such cases were reported from Haryana (42
cases), followed by Jharkhand (40), Karnataka (38), Andhra Pradesh (32) and
Jammu and Kashmir (29).
• These six states accounted for 250 cases — more than half the number of total
sedition cases recorded in the country — in the eight-year period.
• 76 sedition cases were registered across the country in 2021, a marginal
increase from the 73 registered in 2020.
• States and UTs that did not register even one sedition case in that period
were Meghalaya, Mizoram, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra
and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry.
 Constitutionality of Sedition

• Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression: The sedition law, as

defined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, infringes upon the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It criminalizes acts
that bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government,
which curtails the citizens’ ability to express their political dissent and
discontent.
• Democratic Principles: Disaffection towards a government, which is
subject to change through the electoral process, cannot be treated as
a criminal offense. The sedition law restricts the democratic principles
of public debate, dissent, and accountability.
• Omission from the Constitution: During the drafting of the Indian
Constitution, the Constituent Assembly deliberately excluded sedition
as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression.
This omission signifies the Assembly’s intent to safeguard the citizens’
right to express their opinions, including dissenting views on the
government.
• Ambiguity and Misuse: The broad wording and lack of precise
definition allow for arbitrary interpretations, leading to the stifling of
legitimate dissent and the targeting of individuals or groups critical of
the government. This misuse undermines the rule of law and
constitutional protections.
• Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The existence of a sedition law creates
a chilling effect on free speech and expression. The fear of potential
sedition charges discourages individuals from openly expressing their
opinions and engaging in robust public discourse, inhibiting the free
flow of ideas and opinions necessary for a healthy democracy.
• Conflict with International Standards: International bodies such as
the United Nations Human Rights Committee have consistently
expressed concerns about the misuse of sedition laws and called for
their repeal or amendment to align with international human rights
standards.
 What are the Significance and Issues with the Sedition Law?

• Significance:
• Reasonable Restrictions:
• The constitution of India prescribes reasonable restrictions (under Article 19(2)) that can
always be imposed on this right (Freedom of Speech and Expression) in order to ensure
its responsible exercise and to ensure that it is equally available to all citizens.
• Maintaining Unity & Integrity:
• Sedition law helps the government in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist
elements.
• Maintaining Stability of State:
• It helps in protecting the elected government from attempts to overthrow the
government with violence and illegal means. The continued existence of the government
established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State.
• Issues:
• Relic of Colonial Era:
• Colonial administrators used sedition to lock up people who criticised the British policies.
• Stalwarts of the freedom movement such as Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat
Singh, etc., were convicted for their “seditious” speeches, writings and activities under British rule.
• Thus, rampant use of the sedition law recalls the colonial era.
• Stand of Constituent Assembly:
• The Constituent Assembly did not agree to include sedition in the Constitution. The members felt it would
curtail freedom of speech and expression.
• They argued that the sedition law can be turned into a weapon to suppress people’s legitimate and
constitutionally guaranteed right to protest.
• Disregarding Supreme Court’s Judgement:
• Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case 1962, limited application of sedition to “acts
involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to
violence”.
• Thus, invoking sedition charges against academicians, lawyers, socio-political activists and students is in
disregard of the Supreme Court’s order.
• Repressing Democratic Values:
• Increasingly, India is being described as an elected autocracy primarily because of the callous and calculated
Inconsistencies regarding the sedition law in India

• Interpretational Inconsistencies: The Tilak case (1897) interpreted

sedition as exciting disaffection towards the government, even
without inciting violence or rebellion. However, the Majumdar case
(1942) acquitted the accused by emphasizing that sedition requires a
tendency to incite violence or disorder.
• Varying Judicial Approaches: The Supreme Court’s approach in the
Kedarnath case (1962) further adds to the inconsistencies. While the
Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, it narrowed its
application to only acts that incite violence. The Court’s attempt to
retain sedition despite acknowledging its exclusion from the draft
Constitution and concerns over its severity creates a contradictory
stance.
• Lack of Clarity in Statutory Language: The language of Section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition, lacks precision and clarity. The
vague terms such as hatred, contempt, and disaffection make it susceptible
to subjective interpretations and misuse by law enforcement authorities.
This lack of clarity contributes to the inconsistent application of the sedition
law.
• Conflict with Constitutional Principles: The sedition law, as it stands,
conflicts with constitutional principles, particularly the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution. The broad interpretation of sedition and its
criminalization of political dissent and disaffection towards the government
infringe upon citizens’ constitutional rights.
• Disparity with International Standards: International bodies,
including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, have
expressed concerns about the misuse of sedition laws and
recommended their repeal or amendment to align with international
human rights norms. This disparity highlights the inconsistencies
between the sedition law in India and global standards.
Way ahead: Recommendations to strike a balance

• Repeal or Substantial Reform: Given the inconsistencies, ambiguity,

and potential for misuse, there is a strong case for the repeal or
substantial reform of the sedition law. This could involve narrowing
the scope of the offense, clarifying the language, and aligning it with
constitutional principles and international human rights standards.
• Precise Definition: The sedition law should be defined more precisely
to avoid ambiguity and subjective interpretations. A clear and specific
definition would help establish the boundaries of the offense,
ensuring that it is not misused to suppress legitimate dissent or
criticism.
• Balancing National Security and Freedom of Expression: Any reform
or amendment to the sedition law should strike a balance between
protecting national security and safeguarding freedom of expression.
This can be achieved by focusing on acts that pose a genuine threat to
public order, incite violence, or endanger the integrity of the state
while ensuring that peaceful dissent and criticism are not stifled.
• Judicial Clarity: The judiciary should provide consistent and well-
defined guidelines for the interpretation and application of the
sedition law. Clear guidelines would help prevent arbitrary
enforcement and provide greater clarity on the limits of the offense.
• Safeguards and Procedural Reforms: Implementing safeguards and
procedural reforms can help prevent the misuse of the sedition law.
This may include requiring higher standards of evidence, ensuring
transparency and accountability in investigations and prosecutions,
and providing avenues for redress in cases of wrongful or frivolous
charges.
• Public Awareness and Sensitization: There is a need for public
awareness campaigns and sensitization programs to educate citizens,
law enforcement authorities, and the judiciary about the nuances of
freedom of expression and the potential pitfalls of the sedition law.
• International Dialogue and Learning: Engaging in international
dialogue and learning from best practices can provide valuable
insights for reforming the sedition law. Studying the experiences of
other democratic countries and considering international human
rights standards can help shape more effective and rights-respecting
legislation.
 Conclusion

• The interpretation and application of Section 124A have been

inconsistent, leading to misuses and abuses by law enforcement
authorities. The Law Commission’s recent recommendations for
enhancing punishment and incorporating the tendency to incite
disorder fail to address the core issue of the law’s unconstitutionality.
It is imperative to revaluate and repeal the sedition law to protect and
uphold the democratic values of free speech and expression in India.
Thank You