Sedition Law In India: An Analysis of Developments

and the Need for Amendments

Lakshya Agarwal1

Introduction

The recent case of Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha & Anr vs. Union of India 2 has brought the
sedition statute's relevance into question. The Supreme Court raised concerns about its
colonial origins and whether it is still necessary after 75 years of independence. The statute
has faced criticism for being misused, leading to a heated debate about whether it should be
reconstructed or repealed entirely. While some argue that it is vital to maintain India's
integrity and sovereignty, others believe it has been abused as a political tool to silence
dissenting voices. As calls grow stronger to remove the sedition clauses, this article examines
the challenges and future decisions surrounding the sedition law in India. It delves into the
historical context, analyses its contemporary application, and considers the implications of its
potential reform or repeal.

Genesis and Development of the Law of Sedition

Sedition originated in English Law and initially covered acts like libels and slanders against
rulers. It later evolved to include actions that could incite unrest. The 1606 case of de Libellis
Famosis laid the groundwork for seditious libel. The classic definition from Sir James
Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law (1887) describes sedition as intending to provoke
hatred or contempt towards the ruling authority, incite unlawful attempts to alter the
established order, promote discontent among subjects, or incite crime. This definition helps
distinguish between conduct crimes (inciting disaffection) and consequence crimes (unlawful
means leading to ridicule of authority). The development of sedition law in English Law laid

1
Author is a student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida
2
W.P. (Crl.) No. 106/2021.
the foundation for its evolution in various jurisdictions, including India, where it underwent
further changes and adaptations.3

The law on sedition in India was first seen in Macualay’s Draft Penal Code (1837 - 1839). It
included the provision of section 113 which was read as “Whoever by words either spoken on
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, attempts to excite feelings of
disaffection to the Government established by law in the territories of the East India
Company among any class of people who live under that Government, shall be punished with
banishment for life or for any term, from the territories of the East India Company, to which
fine may be added, or with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,
to which fine may be added or with fine.”

Subsequently, the law commission submitted its report on the Indian Penal Code, ten years
after the initial draft was proposed in 1846. Despite objections raised regarding certain
provisions of the draft, they were disregarded. One particular concern was that the maximum
imprisonment term for offenses under this code should not exceed 5 years in India.

However, in the final draft of the Indian Penal Code, of 1860, the provision for sedition was
initially absent. It was later rectified and introduced as Section 124A through Special Act
XVII of 1870. Under this section sedition was defined as “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, or with fine”.4 The section acts as a restriction to the activities undertaken to
jeopardize the safety and stability of the state and at the same time keeping in mind the
liberty and freedom of speech and expression of the citizens. 5 This amendment played a
crucial role in preserving and preventing the misuse of freedom of speech and expression.
Without this provision, offenses of this nature would have been punishable under more severe
common law provisions, which were characterized by a greater suppression of free speech.
This inclusion was necessary to draw a distinction between disaffection and mere
disapproval.

3
Rakesh Kumar Sahoo and Shivani Kapoor, “Sedition on India: A Comparative Study Proposing Abolition of
the Colonial Law” 11 Pen Acclaims 2 (2020).
4
Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
5
V. Kaushik, “Law of Sedition is a Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression” 3593 International Journal
of Health Sciences (2022).
 The provision was later amended in 1898 to include punishment of “transportation of life”, or
any shorter period. It also included that sedition is an attempt of bringing hatred or contempt
towards the government. It was amended in 1955 wherein it concluded that punishment as
“imprisonment for life and/or with fine or imprisonment for three years and/or with fine”.6

Research Problem

The research problem of this article is to examine the challenges faced by the sedition law in
India and the need for future decisions to ensure its proper application while balancing state
interests and individual rights. The article aims to address concerns of potential misuse,
vagueness in its language and scope, adaptation to the digital age, and alignment with
international norms.

Research Objectives

The research objectives of this article are to analyze the misuse and abuse of the sedition law
in stifling dissent and curtailing freedom of expression, assess the vagueness and ambiguity
in its language and scope leading to inconsistent application, explore the challenges posed by
the digital age, and examine the implications of the sedition law on international human
rights and democratic values. Additionally, the article aims to propose the need for
comprehensive review and reform of the sedition law to safeguard individual liberties while
upholding national security interests.

Case Analysis

This section, we delve into significant landmark cases on sedition both before and after
India's independence. By examining the legal proceedings, verdicts, and their impact on the
interpretation and application of the sedition law, we aim to gain valuable insights into the
evolution and complexities surrounding this contentious legal provision.

Prior to Independence

i. Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose7 : In this case, Sir Comer Petheram CJ
provided a clear distinction between “disaffection” and “disapprobation”. Disaffection
refers to feelings of dislike or hatred, while disapprobation signifies disapproval. The
crucial element lies in the intent to incite a disposition to disobey or subvert lawful
authority through means that create such an impression in the minds of the audience.
6
Law Commission of India, 279th Report on Usage of the Law on Sedition (April, 2023).
7
(1892) ILR 19 Cal 35.
 Consequently, if this intent is established, the person may be held guilty under the
relevant section.8
ii. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak9 : In this case, similar to the previous Bangobasi
case, Justice Strachey aligned with the interpretation of "disaffection" as explained earlier.
He emphasized that the term "disloyalty" best captures the intention behind including
"disaffection" in the section. The intensity of disaffection holds no significance, except in
determining the extent of punishment. The section treats successful and unsuccessful
attempts to incite disloyalty or enmity toward the government equally. The decisive factor
lies in the accused's intent, irrespective of the actual outcome in instigating such
sentiments among the audience.
iii. Emperor v. Ramchandra Narayan Shastri10 : In this case, a slight deviation from the
definition of disaffection occurred. The full bench ruled that disaffection did not solely
imply a feeling contrary to affection or disloyalty, but also encompassed a positive sense
of aversion, akin to ill will. Nevertheless, all other interpretations of the section remained
valid.

The Constitutional Validity post-Independence

Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State (1951) 11 holds immense significance as the first sedition case
under India's independent judiciary. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared Section
124A as unconstitutional, violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression. It argued that while sedition laws might have been justified during foreign rule,
they were unsuitable in a democratic state post-independence.

In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the initial amendment to the Constitution, which aimed
to restrict the freedom granted under Article 19(1)(a). This amendment led to the
incorporation of Article 19(2), granting the State the authority to impose "reasonable
restrictions" on the right to free speech.12 Similarly, in the case of Sabir Raza v. State13, the
Allahabad High Court upheld the right of citizens to criticize the government and its
members under Article 19. It emphasized that mere criticism, even if it disrupts public order,
cannot be treated as sedition.

8
Malavika Parthasarathy, “Sedition Law in India: a Timeline” Supreme Court Observer (2022).
9
(1917) 19 BOMLR 211.
10
(1931) 33 BOMLR 1169.
11
1951 CriLJ 449 (P&H).
12
Utkarsh Anand “The Sedition Story: Complicated History of Sec 124A” Hindustan Times, Jul. 19, 2021.
13
Cri. App. No. 1434 of 1955, D/- 11-2-1958 (All) (Zl).
However, in 1959, the Allahabad High Court explicitly deemed Section 124A
unconstitutional, asserting that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be justified
solely on the possibility of public disorder. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath
Singh v. State of Bihar14, overruled the above judgments and upheld the validity of sedition.
The Court outlined guidelines stating that only acts of disloyalty inciting public disorder
through violence can be considered as sedition.

Despite challenges, the sedition law retained its validity after independence, recognized as a
valid exception to the right to freedom of speech and expression, provided its application
adheres to the specified guidelines.

Analysis of Supreme Court’s Decision

Since its inception in 1950, the Supreme Court of India has encountered numerous cases
related to sedition and has delivered judgments where the offense has been extensively
analyzed. In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, it was clarified that the
charge of sedition can only be upheld when a speech incites violence, leading to the
disruption of public law and order, and not merely for advocating certain views.

The inclusion of sedition in the Indian Penal Code aimed to safeguard the government from
unfounded hatred and ridicule that could hinder the overall development of the country. It
was crucial to strike a balance between safeguarding the nation from baseless and false
accusations, while also upholding the principles of freedom of expression and dissent, to
ensure the country's sustainable development. In May 2022, the Supreme Court, in the case of
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India15, made a significant decision to suspend the provision of
sedition. This step was taken to subject the provision to scrutiny and address the issues
arising from its application in various cases.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court carefully examined the petition presented by the
petitioner and made the decision to temporarily suspend the registration of cases under
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court acknowledged the challenging
task of balancing the interests of the State with the protection of civil liberties for its citizens.
Recognizing this delicate balance, the court deemed it necessary to conduct a thorough
review of the sedition provision in order to ensure a fair and just legal framework.16

14
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769.
15
W.P. (Civil) No. 128 of 2019.
16
(2022) 7 SCC 433: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 154.
The Supreme Court's decision aligned with the stance of the Union Government, which
recognized the need to review the provision of sedition in light of the evolving legal
landscape. While acknowledging the importance of having a legal provision like sedition to
protect the interests of the State, there was a shared belief that checks must be in place to
prevent the provision's misuse and unintended application. It was argued that the existing
provision was a remnant of the colonial era and not aligned with the present times, having
been enacted prior to the Constitution.

Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opted to suspend the registration of any new cases
under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and put pending hearings on hold.

Comparative analysis of sedition laws in other jurisdictions

The laws pertaining to sedition exhibit significant variations across different states, with
some jurisdictions having abolished it altogether, while others impose stricter measures or
continue to develop their approach. Conducting a thorough analysis and comparison of the
application of these laws becomes essential to improve our understanding of the gravity of
the offense in India. By comprehending these diverse legal perspectives, the nation can
enhance its legislative framework and attain a more balanced equilibrium between the state's
interests and its citizens' rights. Such a comprehensive understanding will pave the way for
refining the sedition law and fostering a more just and equitable legal landscape.

United Kingdom

In the past, seditious behavior was considered equivalent to treason during the monarchy.
Seditious libel and blasphemous libel were linked as the State and Church were perceived as
one entity. The Sedition Act of 1661 criminalized sedition in the United Kingdom, while the
"De Libellis Famosis"17 case firmly established the concept of seditious libel.18

However, the Law Reforms Committee (now the Law Commission) recommended the
abolition of sedition statutes in 1977. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008
made blasphemous libel illegal, and subsequently, the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009
removed provisions against seditious libel and sedition.

It is crucial to note that the United Kingdom, on which Indian law is based, no longer
considers sedition a crime. The existence of these outdated charges in the UK has been cited
17
(K B 1606) 77 Eng Rep 250.
18
William T. Mayton, “Seditious Libel and the Lost Guarantee of a Freedom of Speech” 84 Colum. L. Rev. 91
(1984).
as a reason for maintaining similar laws in other countries, which were utilized to suppress
political dissent and restrict journalistic freedom. By eliminating these offenses, the UK can
take a leading role in opposing legislation that curtails free speech in other nations.

United States of America

During a virtual war with France, the Federalist administration passed the Alien and Sedition
laws, including the Sedition Act of 1798. This act targeted foreigners sympathetic to France,
prohibiting slanderous remarks against the federal government. Democratic-Republican
journalists, critical of the government, were particularly affected. The public backlash led to
the repeal of the Sedition Act in 1801.

The Sedition Act of 1918 aimed to prevent disloyalty and treason among military personnel. 19
However, the US Supreme Court later overturned this act. While treason and seditious
conspiracy are still considered crimes under the Federal Criminal Code, India's sedition law
appears broader in scope than the former US laws. Conversely, the USA lacks a specific
provision similar to India's sedition law. Both countries, however, prioritize protecting
people's freedom of expression while ensuring public welfare.

Australia

Australia's Crime Act of 1920 introduced comprehensive sedition legislation, broader than
common law, without requiring specific intent or incitement to violence for conviction. The
Hope Commission in 1984 proposed aligning Australian sedition with the Commonwealth's.
The Gibbs Committee in 1991 suggested retaining the offense but limiting convictions to acts
inciting violence against constitutional authority. In 2005, sedition became an offense in the
Anti-Terrorism Act, with defenses in Sections 80.2 and 80.3 of the Criminal Code Act. The
ALRC Report suggested removing "sedition" from federal criminal law, leading to changes in
headings to 'Treason and urging political or inter-group force or violence,' and 'Urging
political or inter-group force or violence.' The National Security Legislation Amendment Act,
2010, replaced "sedition" with 'urging violence offenses,' covering intentional urges to use
force or violence against the Constitution, government, or target groups based on race,
religion, nationality, or political opinion. The new offense preserves sedition's essence.

Recommendations of the Law Commission

19
This Act was a set of amendments to enlarge Espionage Act, 1917.
In its report no. 279 of April 2023, the Law Commission emphasized the importance of
retaining the provision under Section 124A of the IPC to safeguard the country's integrity.
The Commission asserted that maintaining a counter-terror provision is crucial for protecting
the unity and sanctity of the nation, as it helps to monitor and control activities that may
incite unnecessary hate and ridicule. While acknowledging that the provision has colonial
origins, the Commission deemed this alone not sufficient reason for its abolition. After
careful consideration of various factors, the Commission recommended that instead of
abolishing the entire provision, certain amendments should be made to Section 124A of the
IPC.

The Law Commission proposes the inclusion of the "test of tendency" from the Kedar Nath
Judgment into Section 124-A of the IPC. This test clarifies that acts lacking the potential to
incite hatred, disaffection, and jeopardize the safety and stability of the state would not be
covered under Section 124-A IPC. By incorporating this test, the main objective of the
section becomes clear, eliminating any vagueness or ambiguity that may have otherwise
existed.

The Commission proposes a crucial measure to enhance the application of Section 124A of
the IPC. Prior to registering an FIR for an offense under this provision, it advocates for a
mandatory preliminary inquiry led by a police officer of no less than the rank of Inspector.
The aim of this inquiry is to meticulously assess the presence of adequate evidence to
substantiate the charge of sedition. The diligent police officer must document the reasons
behind the inquiry's findings. Moreover, to ensure prudence, FIR registration necessitates
prior permission from the competent authority, be it the Central or State Government. This
recommendation stems from the discerning observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, as the Law Commission endeavors to introduce
apt safeguards in the implementation of the sedition law.

The Law Commission highlights a significant discrepancy in the term of punishment for an
offense under Section 124-A IPC. The current provision allows for varying sentences,
ranging from imprisonment for life to imprisonment up to three years or a fine. The
Commission recommends amending and aligning the term of punishment with other
provisions in Chapter VI of the IPC. This amendment would grant the judiciary greater
flexibility in determining the appropriate quantum of punishment based on the seriousness of
the offense.
After careful consideration of various grounds and judgments, including the Kedar Nath case,
the Law Commission proposes amendments to the definition of sedition under Section 124-A
IPC. It recommends that the revised definition should take into account the tendency of the
act to incite violence and disturb public order. Furthermore, the Commission suggests a
modification in the term of punishment, broadening its scope to allow for sentences of up to 7
years, life imprisonment, or a fine.

The overall recommendations of the Law Commission aim to achieve a delicate balance
between the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the interests of the
state. While considering the welfare of both the nation and the liberties of its citizens, it is
essential to strike a harmonious equilibrium. The sedition law serves as an exception to
Article 19(2) of the Constitution, aiming to curb activities that could disrupt the peaceful
functioning of the government, leading to disharmony within the state. Therefore, it becomes
crucial to heed the Law Commission's recommendations to strike a judicious balance
between the state's interests and the citizens' right to freedom of speech in the country.20

Challenges and future decisions

The sedition law in India confronts a multitude of challenges, demanding meticulous

deliberation and future decisions to ensure its appropriate application and the equilibrium
between state interests and individual rights. A primary concern revolves around the potential
misuse and abuse of the sedition law as a tool for suppressing dissent and curtailing freedom
of expression. Critics argue that governments may exploit this provision to silence political
opponents and activists, instilling a chilling effect on free speech. To combat this, it is
imperative to implement checks and balances to prevent misuse and safeguard citizens' right
to express their opinions without fear of persecution.21

Another hurdle lies in the vagueness and ambiguity of the sedition law's language and scope,
making it susceptible to varying interpretations and inconsistent application. This lack of
clarity poses challenges in defining what constitutes sedition, leading to incongruent
judgments across different cases. To promote uniformity and fairness, clear definitions and
guidelines are essential.

20
Law Commission of India, 279th Report on Usage of the Law on Sedition (April, 2023).
21
B S Uday Kiran, “The Analytical Study of Sedition Law in India and its Constitutional Validity” 5 IJLMH
1483 – 1491 (2022)
The advent of the digital age introduces fresh challenges to the concept of sedition. The
widespread use of technology for communication and information dissemination necessitates
reevaluating the adaptation of the sedition law to this digital landscape. Balancing national
security concerns with the preservation of freedom of expression on digital platforms
becomes crucial for future decisions.

Internationally, the existence of sedition laws faces scrutiny, as it may run counter to
recognized human rights and democratic values. Aligning national laws with international
norms becomes imperative to ensure adherence to global standards of free speech and
expression.

In response to these challenges, legal experts and civil society advocates advocate for a
comprehensive review and reform of the sedition law. Amendments could clarify the
offense's scope, emphasizing the importance of the intention to incite violence, while
introducing procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. Striking a balance between national
security and individual liberties is the key objective.

Ultimately, the courts play a pivotal role in interpreting and applying the sedition law.
Consistent and transparent judicial pronouncements are essential in addressing the challenges
and providing a cohesive framework for its implementation. Responsible judicial
interpretation can ensure that the sedition law is applied fairly, upholding democratic values,
and safeguarding citizens' rights.

In conclusion, the challenges surrounding the sedition law necessitate careful consideration
and proactive measures to maintain its relevance and effectiveness in the evolving legal
landscape. Sustaining the balance between state interests and citizens' rights requires
continuous efforts, such as comprehensive reviews, responsible judicial interpretation, and
alignment with international standards, to uphold democracy and preserve fundamental
freedoms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the sedition law in India encounters various challenges that necessitate careful
consideration and future decisions to strike a balance between state interests and individual
rights. The potential for misuse and abuse of this law to suppress dissent and curtail freedom
of expression is a pressing concern that demands the implementation of checks and balances
to protect citizens' rights. The vagueness and ambiguity in its language and scope need to be
addressed through clearer definitions and guidelines to ensure consistent and fair application.

Moreover, the emergence of the digital age brings new challenges, requiring a reevaluation of
the sedition law's adaptation to digital platforms while safeguarding freedom of expression.
International scrutiny of the law's compliance with human rights and democratic values
underscores the importance of aligning national laws with global standards.

To address these challenges, comprehensive review and reform of the sedition law are
advocated, emphasizing the intention to incite violence as a key element and introducing
safeguards against misuse. Responsible judicial interpretation remains crucial in providing a
cohesive framework for its implementation.

By continuously addressing these challenges and embracing future-oriented decisions, India

can uphold its democratic values, preserve fundamental freedoms, and ensure that the
sedition law serves as a legitimate means to safeguard national security while respecting the
rights of its citizens.
 References

Books

1. P. S. Atchuthen Pillai, “.P.S.A. Pillai's Criminal Law”

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)

Websites

1. Sedition Law in India; A Timeline, available at:

https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sedition-in-india-a-timeline/
2. The Sedition Story: Complicated History of Section 124A available at:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-sedition-story-complicated-history-of-
sec-124a.
3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6454-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-
and-sedition-law-in-india.
4. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/law-commission-sedition-safeguards
5. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-indias-colonial-sedition-law-origins-
govt-abuse-courts-take-on-it.

Articles

1. V. Kaushik, “Law of Sedition is a Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression” 3593

International Journal of Health Sciences (2022).

2. William T. Mayton, “Seditious Libel and the Lost Guarantee of a Freedom of Speech” 84
Colum. L. Rev. 91 (1984).

3. Rakesh Kumar Sahoo and Shivani Kapoor, “Sedition on India: A Comparative Study
Proposing Abolition of the Colonial Law” 11 Pen Acclaims 2 (2020).

4. B S Uday Kiran, “The Analytical Study of Sedition Law in India and its Constitutional
Validity” 5 IJLMH 1483 – 1491 (2022)