Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance
Context
- The Supreme Court said that courts can proceed with trials and appeals involving the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the accused had no objection.
About
- In 2022, the SC had put on hold trials in sedition cases pending before courts until the government completed its promised exercise “to re-examine and re-consider” the colonial-era provision.
- The court also made it clear that the Centre and States should refrain from registering FIRs, continuing investigations, or taking coercive measures under Section 124A while the “reconsideration” was underway.
Background of Sedition Laws in India
- The sedition law was not originally part of the IPC drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1860. It was inserted later in 1870 by the British colonial government.
- The British introduced sedition law mainly to:
- Suppress growing nationalist sentiment,
- Control the vernacular press,
- Prevent criticism of colonial rule,
- Punish leaders involved in the freedom movement.
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak was among the first nationalist leaders prosecuted for sedition.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code
- It states that whoever by words, spoken or written, signs, 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 shall be punished.
- The punishment prescribed included: Imprisonment for life with fine, or imprisonment up to three years with fine, or fine alone.
- The offence was cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
- This gave wide powers to the police and administration.
- The provision clarified that lawful criticism of government policies was not sedition if it did not incite hatred, violence, or public disorder.
Constitutional Debate on Sedition
- Article 19(1)(a) is the Freedom of Speech and Expression: The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes:
- Freedom to criticize the government,
- Freedom of the press,
- Freedom to express political opinions,
- Right to dissent peacefully.
- Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2): Reasonable Restrictions in the interests of Public Order, Security of State, Sovereignty and Integrity.
- The constitutional debate on sedition focused on whether Section 124A imposed unreasonable restrictions on free speech.
Important Supreme Court Judgments on Sedition
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but restricted its application.
- The Court ruled that mere criticism of the government is not sedition, strong words against the government are protected under free speech.
- Sedition applies only when there is incitement to violence, or intention to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order.
- It became the guiding principle for interpreting sedition law.
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab: The Court emphasized that isolated expressions without violent consequences cannot be criminalized as sedition.
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India: The Court ruled that strong or vehement criticism of the government’s policies or functionaries is well within the bounds of free speech and cannot be penalized as sedition unless there is a clear, proven intent and tendency to provoke violence or disturb public peace.
Sedition Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
- The government officially removed Section 124A IPC and stated that colonial-era sedition law had been abolished.
- Although sedition was removed, Section 152 of the BNS introduced a new offence relating to acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
- The provision criminalizes: Secessionist activities, armed rebellion, subversive activities, encouragement of separatist feelings, and activities threatening national unity.
- The punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Criticism of the New Provision
- Broad Terminology: Terms such as “subversive activities,” “Separatist feelings,” may be vague and open to misuse. Critics fear that peaceful dissent may still be targeted under broad interpretations.
- Continuity With Sedition: Some scholars argue that although Section 124A has been removed, the new law may continue similar state powers under different terminology.
Conclusion
- Originally introduced by the British to suppress the freedom movement, Section 124A IPC remained controversial even after independence because of its potential conflict with freedom of speech.
- The Supreme Court repeatedly limited the scope of sedition by holding that only speech involving incitement to violence or public disorder could be punished.
- With the replacement of the IPC by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the formal sedition provision has been removed, but debates continue regarding the scope of the new law under Section 152.
Source: TH
