Sedition
దేశదరో హం
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras, 1950
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, 1995
What is Sedition?
Sedition, which falls under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, is defined as any action that brings or
attempts to bring hatred or contempt towards the government of India and has been illegal in India since 1870.
1.What is Sedition law?
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sedition, was drafted by Thomas
Babington Macaulay and included in the IPC in 1870.
2.What does Section 124 A states?
Section 124A of the IPC, which deals with sedition, states, "Whoever, 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."
Historical Background of Sedition Law:
✓ Sedition laws were enacted in 17th century England when lawmakers believed that only
good opinions of the government should survive, as bad opinions were detrimental to
the government and monarchy.
✓ This sentiment (and law) was borrowed and inserted into the Section 124A of IPC in
1870, by the British.
✓ British used Sedition law to convict and sentence freedom fighters. It was first used to
prosecute Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897.
The Constituent Assembly debated to include sedition as a ground for restricting free
speech. However, this was successfully opposed for fear that it would be used to crush
political dissent.
The Supreme Court highlighted these debates in 1950 in its decisions in Brij Bhushan v the
State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar v. the State of Madras.
✓ In these cases, the court held that a law which restricted speech on the ground that it
would disturb public order was unconstitutional. It also held that disturbing the public
order will mean nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or
threatening its overthrow.
✓ Thus, these decisions prompted the First Constitution Amendment, where Article 19(2)
was rewritten to replace “undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of
public order”.
Views by Supreme Court:
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras, 1950
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, 1995
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)
Theme : Freedom of speech and expression
SC ruled that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations.
{Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act 1949}
The full court ruled that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the
liberty of the press, which is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 (1)(a).
It said the freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed
to a citizen by the Constitution and should be jealously guarded by the courts. The verdict
added that free political discussion is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic
government.
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)
Is Part Freedom
Freedom of Speech
of Press and
of Expression
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)
Theme : Sedition Law
The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code that penalized sedition.
The Court emphasized that the phrase “Government established by law” under Section
124A of IPC must be distinguished from criticism of a specific party or persons.
The purpose of the crime of sedition was to prevent the Government established by law
from being subverted because “the continued existence of the Government established by
law is an essential condition of the stability of the State”.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)
It incites violence
or disaffection
Sedition under towards the
Sec 124A only if Government
established by
the law
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, 1995
The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, acquitted persons from charges of
sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabaad” and “Raj Karega Khalsa” after
Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
Instead of looking at the “tendency” of the words to cause public disorder, the Court held
that mere sloganeering that evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.
The law and its application clearly distinguish between ‘strong criticism of the government’
and ‘incitement of violence’.
Relevance of Sedition Law
✓ Freedom of speech often poses difficult questions, like the extent to which the State can regulate
individual conduct. Since an individual‘s autonomy is the foundation of this freedom; any
restriction on it is subject to great scrutiny.
✓ The Constitution of India prescribes reasonable restrictions that can always be imposed on this
right in order to ensure its responsible exercise and to ensure that it is equally available to all
citizens.
✓ These restrictions are mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India i.e. interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.
✓ Sedition law helps the government to curb secessionist movement and other atrocity propaganda.
Why sedition law should be repealed?
✓ Sedition leads to a sort of unauthorised self-censorship, for it produces a chilling effect on
free speech.
✓ It suppresses what every citizen ought to do in a democracy — raise questions, debate,
disagree and challenge the government's decisions.
✓ Sedition systematically destroys the soul of Gandhi’s philosophy that is, right to dissent.
✓ Jawaharlal Nehru, in Parliament, clarified that the related penal provision of Section 124A
was “highly objectionable and obnoxious and the sooner we get rid of it the better”.
✓ Even the UK, where the law originated, has already repealed it.
Law Commission Consultation Paper on Sedition
In a consultation paper released last year, the Law Commission said:
“In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to
show their affection towards their country in their own way. For doing the same, one might indulge in constructive
criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the government. Expressions used in such thoughts
might be harsh and unpleasant to some, but that does not render the actions to be branded seditious. Section
124A should be invoked only in cases where the intention behind any act is to disrupt public order or to overthrow
the government with violence and illegal means. Every irresponsible exercise of right to free speech and expression
cannot be termed seditious. For merely expressing a thought that is not in consonance with the policy of the
government of the day, a person should not be charged under the Section.
“Expression of frustration over the state of affairs, for instance, calling India ‘no country for women’, or a country
that is ‘racist’ for its obsession with skin colour as a marker of beauty, are critiques that do not threaten the idea of
a nation. Berating the country or a particular aspect of it cannot and should not be treated as sedition.
“If the country is not open to positive criticism, there lies little difference between the pre- and post-Independence
eras. Right to criticise one’s own history and the right to offend are rights protected under free speech.
“While it is essential to protect national integrity, it should not be misused as a tool to curb free speech. Dissent
and criticism are essential ingredients of a robust public debate on policy issues as part of a vibrant democracy.
Therefore, every restriction on free speech and expression must be carefully scrutinised to avoid unwarranted
restrictions.
“In order to study revision of section 124A further, the following issues would require consideration:
✓ The United Kingdom abolished sedition laws ten years back citing that the country did not want to be quoted as an
example of using such draconian laws. Given the fact that the Section itself was introduced by the British to use as
a tool to oppress the Indians, how far is it justified to retain Section 124A in the IPC?
✓ Should sedition be not redefined in a country like India, the largest democracy of the world, considering that right
to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy ensured as a Fundamental Right by our
Constitution?
✓ Will it be worthwhile to think of an option of renaming the Section with a suitable substitute for the term sedition
and prescribe punishment accordingly?
✓ What is the extent to which the citizens of our country may enjoy the right to offend?
✓ At what point would the right to offend qualify as hate speech?
✓ How to strike a balance between Section 124A and right to freedom of speech and expression?
✓ In view of the fact that there are several statutes which take care of various acts which were earlier considered
seditious, how far would keeping section 124A in the IPC serve any purpose?
✓ Given the fact that all the existing statutes cover the various offences against the individual and/or the offences
against society, will reducing the rigour of Section 124A or repealing it be detrimental or beneficial to the nation?
✓ In a country where contempt of court invites penal action, should contempt against the government established by
law not invite punishment?
✓ What could be the possible safeguards to ensure that Section 124A is not misused?”
Way Forward
✓ The higher judiciary should use its supervisory powers to sensitize the magistracy and
police to the constitutional provisions protecting free speech.
✓ The definition of sedition should be narrowed down, to include only the issues pertaining
to the territorial integrity of India as well as the sovereignty of the country.
✓ Civil society must take the lead to raise awareness about the arbitrary use of Sedition law.
All The Best
