Origin and History of Sedition Law in India

Sedition law in India was introduced by the British colonial government to suppress any form of dissent
or rebellion against its rule. It was first enacted under Section 124A of the IPC in 1870, roughly a decade
after the Indian Penal Code was drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860.
a. Colonial Background
Purpose: The sedition law was designed to curb growing anti-colonial sentiments among Indian
nationalists, who were beginning to demand self-rule.
First use: The first recorded prosecution under this law was against Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897. He was
charged with sedition for delivering a speech that allegedly incited violence against the British
government. The law was extensively used during the freedom movement, notably against leaders such
as Mahatma Gandhi, who was tried for sedition in 1922 for his articles in Young India.

b. Inclusion in the Indian Penal Code

When India gained independence in 1947, Section 124A IPC was retained in the Indian Penal Code by the
newly formed government despite its controversial legacy. It continued to be used for maintaining public
order and preventing incitement to rebellion or violence against the sovereign stateCore

Elements of Sedition Under Section 124A IPC

a. Act of Sedition
Sedition can be committed through spoken words, written words, signs, or visible
representations (e.g., cartoons, graffiti). It can also occur in electronic media, like social media
posts or other online platforms.
b. Disaffection Toward the Government
The law criminalizes any attempt to bring hatred or contempt or excite disaffection (including
disloyalty) towards the government. However, it allows for criticism of the government, as long
as it is aimed at peaceful reform and does not incite violence or public disorder.
c. Intent and Impact
The crucial element for sedition is the intent to incite hatred or disaffection, and not just mere
criticism. The Supreme Court has stressed that sedition must involve incitement to violence or
public disorder for it to be punishable.
d. Punishment
The punishment for sedition can be life imprisonment, imprisonment up to three years, and/or a
fine, depending on the gravity of the offense.

Judicial Interpretation of Sedition Law

a. Pre-Independence Cases
Over the years, sedition law in India has undergone various interpretations by the courts, particularly the
Supreme Court, which has tried to strike a balance between freedom of speech and national security.
Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897): Tilak was charged with sedition for his writings and
speeches against the British government. The court interpreted sedition broadly, establishing that even if
the speech or writing did not incite actual violence, it could still be considered seditious if it brought the
government into contempt or hatred.
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King-Emperor (1942): In this case, the Federal Court of India held that
sedition must involve an element of public disorder or incitement to violence, rather than just criticism
or disaffection against the government.

Post-Independence Cases: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

This is the most landmark judgment on sedition law in post-independence India. The Supreme Court in
this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A, but it significantly narrowed its scope.
Core Ruling: The court held that sedition is punishable only if the speech or action leads to incitement of
violence or has a tendency to create public disorder. Mere criticism of the government or disaffection
without incitement to violence cannot be considered sedition.
Balancing Free Speech: The court recognized the need to protect freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a))
and noted that sedition laws should not be used to stifle legitimate criticism of the government. Speech
that encourages reform or expresses dissent should be protected unless it directly incites violence.
Indira Das v. State of Assam (2011)
The Supreme Court reiterated that speech or writing must amount to incitement of violence for it to be
considered sedition. Mere criticism of the state or its institutions does not amount to sedition.
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organization without active
participation in violence or incitement does not amount to sedition. This ruling further restricted the
scope of the law.

Contemporary Relevance and Criticism of Sedition Law

The sedition law has been at the center of numerous debates in recent years, especially with the rise of
political dissent, social movements, and the widespread use of digital media. While the law has
historically served to maintain public order, it has also been criticized for its potential for misuse.
a. Cases of Alleged Misuse
There have been several high-profile cases in recent years where sedition charges were filed against
activists, journalists, political opponents, and students for acts of dissent. These cases raised concerns
about the weaponization of the law to stifle legitimate criticism and free speech

Some recent cases include:

Kanhaiya Kumar Sedition Case (2016): The former president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Student
Union (JNUSU) was charged with sedition for allegedly raising anti-national slogans at a student rally. The
case sparked widespread debate on the use of sedition law to silence political dissent.
Disha Ravi Toolkit Case (2021): Climate activist Disha Ravi was charged with sedition for her involvement
in creating a protest toolkit related to the farmers' protest. The case drew international attention, with
critics arguing that sedition law was being misused.
 b. Criticism of Sedition Law
Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The primary criticism of sedition law is that it creates a chilling
effect on freedom of speech. Fear of being charged with sedition could deter people from
expressing dissent, which is a vital part of any democracy.
Arbitrary Application: Sedition charges have been applied inconsistently, often targeting political
opponents or minority groups, while allowing others to escape prosecution for similar acts.
Colonial Legacy: Many critics argue that sedition law is a colonial-era relic designed to suppress
the people, and it has no place in a democratic society that values free expression.
International Perspective: Several countries have abolished or significantly curtailed their
sedition laws. In countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, sedition laws
have either been repealed or rendered obsolete.

There have been increasing calls for reforming or abolishing the sedition law. Legal scholars, activists,
and even some government committees have recommended revisiting the scope and necessity of
Section 124A IPC in a modern democratic context.
a. Law Commission of India’s Report (2018)
The Law Commission of India recommended that Section 124A should not be misused to curb free
speech. It also suggested that the government should rethink the law, given its potential for misuse and
the existence of alternative provisions like Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between different
groups).
b. Supreme Court’s Reconsideration (2021)
In 2021, the Supreme Court of India agreed to reconsider the validity of sedition law, acknowledging that
it may have been misused and may no longer be relevant in a modern democracy.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has introduced a new provision on sedition under Section 152, which
replaces Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While both the IPC and BNS provisions aim to
address acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, the BNS provision marks a
significant departure from the old law, reflecting the need for modernization in response to
contemporary challenges, including electronic communication and financial means that may be used to
undermine the state.

1. Scope of Offenses: IPC Section 124A vs BNS Section 152

a. IPC Section 124A (Sedition)
Section 124A IPC primarily dealt with speech, writings, or signs that bring hatred, contempt, or
disaffection toward the government established by law in India. The provision was broad and
included any act that excited disaffection or enmity against the government, whether through
words, signs, or visible representations.
Key Offense: The IPC focused on inciting hatred or disaffection towards the government rather
than explicitly targeting the sovereignty or integrity of the nation.
Punishment: Punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to three years, along with
a fine.
b. BNS Section 152 (Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India)
 The BNS Section 152 significantly changes the focus by emphasizing acts that endanger the
sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, targeting more subversive activities such as secession,
armed rebellion, and separatist activities. It introduces modern elements such as the use of
electronic communication and financial means.
Key Offense: The new law shifts its focus from general disaffection against the government to
specific threats to national unity, including secessionist and armed rebellion activities. It also
adds subversive activities aimed at undermining the country's integrity.
Punishment: Punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to seven years, along with
a fine.
2. Key Differences in the Focus of Law
a. From Disaffection Against Government to Threats to Sovereignty
The most significant change is the shift in emphasis from inciting "disaffection" toward the
government to targeting acts that directly threaten India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
Old Law (IPC 124A): The older law criminalized any form of disaffection toward the government,
which included criticism that may not necessarily incite rebellion or threaten the state. This
made it prone to misuse to silence dissent, as criticism of government policies could sometimes
be misinterpreted as sedition.
New Law (BNS 152): The BNS provision specifically addresses secessionist tendencies, armed
rebellion, and subversive activities. This is a more focused approach, aimed at protecting the
state's integrity rather than curbing all forms of government criticism.
c. Inclusion of Modern Elements
The BNS law recognizes the growing use of electronic communication and financial means in
modern acts of sedition or rebellion.
Electronic Communication: The BNS acknowledges that modern digital platforms such as social
media can be used to spread separatist propaganda, incite rebellion, or organize subversive
activities.
Financial Means: The new law includes the use of financial support for such activities,
recognizing that funding can play a significant role in supporting rebellion or separatist
movements.
The IPC did not explicitly cover these forms of communication or financial activities, making the
BNS more attuned to contemporary realities.
3. Punishment: IPC vs BNS
a. IPC Punishment
Under Section 124A of the IPC, the punishment for sedition was either life imprisonment or
imprisonment for up to three years, with an additional option for a fine.
Imprisonment for Life was seen as an extreme punishment, often criticized as too harsh for some
forms of dissent or criticism.
The three-year imprisonment option also led to concerns about its vagueness, allowing the law
to be used for both serious offenses and minor instances of criticism.
b. BNS Punishment
The BNS Section 152 increases the severity of the lower threshold of punishment, raising it to
seven years instead of three. However, the life imprisonment option remains for more severe
 offenses.
The seven-year punishment seems more appropriate for serious offenses like secession or
armed rebellion, indicating that the law is now more focused on acts that pose a direct threat to
the country rather than general dissent.
Imprisonment for life still remains an option, reflecting the seriousness of sedition-like activities
that directly undermine the nation’s integrity.
4. Protection for Legitimate Criticism
Both the IPC and BNS provisions make room for legitimate criticism of the government.
However, the wording in the BNS is more focused on protecting lawful means of criticism, thus
reducing the scope for misuse.
a. Explanation in IPC Section 124A
The IPC contained three explanations that allowed for comments criticizing the government,
provided such criticism did not seek to incite violence or disaffection against the government.
These explanations were often cited by courts to safeguard free speech, though the broad scope
of disaffection sometimes led to misuse.
b. Explanation in BNS Section 152
The BNS explanation allows for comments expressing disapprobation of government measures
or actions, with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, provided such comments
do not incite secession, rebellion, or subversive activities.
This wording clarifies that only actions that threaten sovereignty or unity are punishable, leaving
space for lawful dissent and peaceful protest. This limits potential misuse of the provision to
stifle criticism.

Criticism of Section 152 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Repackaging of Sedition: Critics argue that Section 152 is essentially a rebranded version of the old
sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC). Despite repealing the colonial-era sedition provision, the new
section still penalizes actions that "excite disaffection," thus retaining the core elements of sedition
under a new label.
Vagueness and Overbreadth: The language of Section 152 is criticized for being vague and overly broad,
which can potentially allow for arbitrary application. Terms like "disaffection" and "endangering
sovereignty" can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, leaving room for misuse against political
dissent or criticism of the government.
Threat to Freedom of Speech: Section 152 is viewed as a potential threat to the right to free speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Critics argue that it could be used to
suppress legitimate dissent, criticism of government policies, and peaceful protests, just as sedition laws
were historically misused.

Scope for Government Misuse: Just like Section 124A, the new provision is seen as giving the
government a powerful tool to target political opponents, journalists, and activists. The broad terms
could allow authorities to charge individuals with incitement even for non-violent or merely critical
expressions.
Effect on Dissent: The potential for harsh punishment under Section 152 could create a chilling effect,
where people might refrain from exercising their right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions.
This could undermine democratic debate and criticism of the government.
Undermines Judicial Safeguards: Although past judicial interpretations of sedition limited its application
to acts involving incitement to violence, Section 152 could bypass these safeguards if not explicitly
defined, reviving the risks associated with the misuse of sedition.