Author: Charvi Tank

ABSTRACT

Sedition law in India has been a part of legal and constitutional debate for many years. The law, which traces back to colonial rule was enacted to suppress rebellion against the Crown. However, since independence it has faced serious concerns regarding its compatibility with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This article examines the evolution of sedition from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It will analyse judicial interpretation, statutory changes, and empirical data to show the problem of misuse and low conviction rates. Recommendations of the Law Commission of India and some comparative practices from other countries have also been taken into consideration. The paper would conclude that though sedition would continue to remain important to protect national integrity and sovereignty of state. Reforms with strict safeguards measures should be taken to not let the misuse of this law increase at the cost of democratic values

INTRODUCTION

The origin of sedition can be traced back to English law. It was implemented during the colonial times and underwent through multiple amendments. It was finally defined by The Court of Star Chambers in 1606, sedition was defined as speaking of defamatory words, publishing libels or engaging in such acts to incite violence or create disaffection against the authority regardless of whether the statement made is true or false. (Law Commission Of India, 2023)

In 1870 sedition was introduced under section 124A of IPC through an amendment by Mr. James Stephen. The law clearly states any person who, by speaking or writing or by display of signs attempts to bring hatred or contempt or excites disaffection or attempts to do so towards government of India shall be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 3 years plus fine or only fine. (iPleaders, 2018)

Over the time, this law became the topic of controversy in our country particularly because this section was primarily aimed at surpassing the voices against the government. The adaptation of this colonial law after independence attracted significant criticism as its provision directly conflicted with Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen of India. (iPleaders, 2018)

Critics argue that the broad and vague definition of this law makes it susceptible to misuse, making it easy to suppress political dissent and critical opinion. on the other hand, supporters of the law claim that it is a necessary provision for safeguarding the sovereignty, integrity and unity of nation, particularly a country like India where several regions have witnessed rise in extremist movement, leading to incidents of violence and public unrest against government, challenging the internal security of our nation.

The judiciary has constantly tried to define section 124a through various landmark judgments and narrowed its application to only acts which result in incitement of violence or disruption of public order. Recently, under the newly introduced Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 section 124A(sedition) of the Indian Penal Code was removed and new provision under Section 152 was introduced with aim to protect national integrity, not government. This step changed the whole dynamics of the debate surrounding sedition. (government of india, 2025)

With these new developments, this article seeks to examine the evolution of sedition, its contradiction with Article 19(1)(a), judicial response to misuse, amendments made through landmark judgments and a thorough evaluation of whether the law of sedition requires reform or repeal.

LEGAL FRAMEWROK FOR SEDITION IN INDIA

Sedition as a criminal offence has been governed under IPC section 124 that aims to penalize the act which threatens the public order, unity and national security. According to section 124A, these activities can be carried out by words either spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or by other means with intention of bringing hatred or contempt towards government. This offence is not based solely on the act (actus reus) but also requires intention (mens rea) to prove a person guilty. The accused must have intentionally incited or attempted to incite violence. Mere criticism of the Government, expression of dissatisfaction, or demand for reforms does not amount to the offence of sedition.

The punishment under this section is severe in nature, including imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 3 years or fine. due to severity of punishment, any accused under this section face serious consequences. The trial process in India is often prolonged that it leads to family draining financially, reputation getting destroyed and futures sinking. This impact of the law has raised some serious questions on its framework and guidelines. (government of india, 2025)

Constitutionally, this law functions under the limitations of Article 19 of the constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech whereas article 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions on this speech for security of the state, maintaining public order and protecting sovereignty and integrity of India. Any action taken under this law must be justified on constitutional grounds.

With the introduction of Bharatiya Nyaya Shanita,2023 sedition law went under a legislative shift. Section 124A was removed and replaced by section 152 of BNS. The new provision no longer speaks in terms of “disaffection against the government” and instead focuses on acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Unlike the earlier law which focused on protecting the Government and its authority, but the new provision aims to safeguard the nation not any specific chair. Section 152 targets acts such as encouraging violence, riots or abetting any conduct which threatens national security. This new framework narrows the scope of sedition law, focus on actions the pose serious threat on state rather than ordinary expression of criticism and disapproval .The introduction of Section 152 can therefore be viewed as a reformative step rather than a complete removal of the concept of sedition. (government of india, n.d.) (Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962)

This legislative shift highlights the evolving nature of sedition law in India making legal framework more precise and focused. 

JUDICIAL INTERPREATION

Courts have played an important role in limiting the scope of sedition law to prevent its misuse. Over time the judiciary has clarified that section 124A of IPC cannot be used to suppress criticism and it must be confined only to acts which pose a serious threat to public order and safety.

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) the constitutional validity of section 124A was challenged on the ground that it violates Article 19(1)(a) of constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The petitioner criticized the government and was convicted under charges of sedition and public mischief. While the supreme court upheld the validity of section 124A it significantly narrowed its application. The apex court clearly drew a line that sedition law will be only applicable on acts which incite violence or disrupt public order. It was also clarified that acts which criticizes the government on their acts and demand of answers or reforms would not be charged under sedition. (Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962)

The scope of sedition law was further narrowed in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab(1995) where the appellants had raised slogans shortly after the assassination of the prime minister. The court observed the slogans were raised without any intention or tendency to disrupt the public order. The court clarified if there is no intention behind the action then sedition will not be applicable. This judgment established that any provocative speech alone is not sufficient unless it actually threatens public peace. (Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab, 1995)

In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving a journalist who was charged with sedition for remarks made against the Prime Minister in relation to the handling of the COVID-19 crisis. While quashing the FIR, the court reiterated the ruling of Kedar Nath judgement of 1962 that criticism of government policy and acts by political leaders even if they are harsh cannot be charged under sedition until and unless they result in incitement of violence and disturbs peace in the state. (vinod dua vs union of india, 2021)

The supreme court in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) passed some significant guidelines regarding the sedition law and acknowledged its widespread concerns regarding its misuse in many cases. The apex court directed that no fresh FIRs to be registered and no action to be taken under the sedition law while it is being reviewed by the government. All the pending trials were also put on hold temporarily Court also permitted affected persons in fresh cases to approach courts for relief. This marked an important moment in the judicial response to sedition as it reflected the Court’s recognition of the law’s potential for abuse. (S.G. Vombatkere v. union of inida , 2022)

Overall, these cases demonstrate that although the judiciary upheld section 124A of IPC constitutionally the courts also have made continuous efforts to restrict misuse through judicial interpretation. The courts justified that any speech or act can only be charged under sedition law if it incites violence or disrupts the public order in the state, mere criticism is protected under the fundamental right of speech.

MISUSE AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS

Reports from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) provides useful insights into the practical application of the sedition law. According to NCRB’s 2022 report only 20 sedition cases were registered across the country, showing a sharp decline from 76 cases registered in 2021. This fall cannot be interpreted as a decrease in misuse of the law. It clearly is the result of Supreme Court’s order in 2022 to keep all the registered and pending matters under sedition in abeyance, indicating that the judicial intervention directly influenced the number of registered cases  

At the same time NCRB report showed a rise in cases under Unlawful Activities (Preventions) Act during the same period. This data suggests that decline in sedition cases does not necessarily reflect reduction in threat to national security. It shows a shift in the use of other statutory mechanism to maintain peace.

A deeper concern rises when we look at some past data. NCRB’S “Crime in India’s” report for 2019 recorded 93 registered cases yet the conviction rate stood at only 3%. This significant gap between the number of cases filed and conviction rate raises serious question on the application of this law. It revealed that this provision is invoked with greater frequency than it is successfully proved in court. (national crime record bureau, 2019)

This pattern supports the view that sedition is used more as a protective mechanism rather than being used in cases where there is actual need. The delay associated with the trial period itself becomes a punishment. The accuse must spend several months or even years for the trial to begin resulting in financial drain, reputational harm and psychological stress, even in situations where no guilt is established.

These concerns however do not completely invalidate the need for sedition law. As one of the world’s most populous countries, India faces complex regional challenges which require safeguard measures to deal with. These challenges do not indicate abolition, rather they highlight the urgent need for reforms, clear operational guidelines and stricter standards for invoking the provision. The concern lies not with the existence of the law but with its application ensuring consistency, restraint and constitutional responsibility. These concerns therefore reflect the importance of reforms rather than eliminating the law itself.

WAY FORWARD

The reform of sedition law must focus on preventing its misuse while retaining its relevance in protecting national security. The Law Commission recommended that the guidelines laid down in Kedar Nath case 1962 should be directly implemented in the statutory language, especially including clear guidelines requiring incitement of violence or disruption of public order, which would ensure legal clarity and reduce its misinterpretation. (Law Commission Of India, 2023)

Another recommendation is the introduction of procedural safeguards at the stage of registration of cases. Mandatory approval from a senior authorized officer should be taken to prevent arbitrary or unnecessary prosecution. This act would prevent cases being registered under political influence and actual cases which pose threats can be given importance. Additionally, the issuance of model guidelines by the Central Government can help standardize enforcement practices across the country

The Law Commission also highlighted the inconsistency in the punishments under earlier law. The extreme gap between minor and major punishment created lack of clarity and unclarity in judicial interpretation. Revising the sentencing structure to align with other security offences, enabling courts to impose punishments proportionate to the gravity of the offence. (Law Commission Of India, 2023)

A comparative analysis showed that a country such as United states of America also retained sedition law with some high restrictions. Because of this the registration rates have significantly declined and the scope of misuse. This shows that reforms rather than removal can ensure both security and freedom of speech without fear of any restrictions. (Law Commission Of India, 2023)

Therefore, the objective should not be to abolish the law but to refine it in a manner that preserves security while safeguarding constitutional liberties.

CONCLUSION

The law of sedition has existed to balance national security and individual liberty. While its colonial origin has raised significant concerns, the objective of protecting the sovereignty and integrity of the nation cannot be ignored. The challenge, therefore lies not in questioning the existence of such a law but in ensuring that its application remains within constitutional limits.

The Judiciary has played a significant role in defining the law and narrowing its scope to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental right while maintaining law and order. Through landmark judgements the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that criticism or expression of anger towards actions of government cannot be equated with disloyalty to the nation unless it is accompanied by incitement of violence or disruption of public order of the state. At the same time various reports have revealed the practical difficulties in its enforcement where arrest rates are higher than conviction rates, leading to unnecessary hardship for individuals.

The legislative shift from Section 124A of the IPC to Section 152 of BNS reflects an attempt to reform the law by shifting its focus from protecting the government to protecting the nation. However, legislation alone is not sufficient. Effective safeguards, strict procedural control, and responsible enforcement are essential to prevent misuse.

In conclusion, sedition should not be viewed as an outdated law or tool of government authority. It should function as a careful regulatory tool used in genuine cases which threaten national security. A democracy is strongest not when it suppresses speech but when it distinguishes between dissent and danger. Reform, not repeal provides the most balanced path forward, ensuring that the nation remains secure without compromising the democratic freedoms that define it.

Bibliography

Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab, 1995 3 SCC 214 (supreme court of india 1995).

government of india. (2025, novermber 30). bharatiya nyaya sanhita,2023(section 152). Retrieved from Indian code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/20062/1/a2023-45.pdf

government of india. (2025, november 30). Indian Penal Code,1860(section124A). Retrieved from Indian code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/about.jsp

government of india. (n.d.). bharatiya Nyaya sanhita,2023.

iPleaders. (2018, february 14). Law of sedition in India. Retrieved from iPleaders: https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-sedition/

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 (Supereme court of India 1962).

Law Commission Of India. (2023). 22nd Law commission report on sedition. New Delhi: ministry of law and justice, government of India.

national crime record bureau. (2019). crime in india 2019. New delhi: ministry of home affairs, government of india.

national crime record bureau. (2022). crime in india . new delhi: ministry of home affairs, government of india.

S.G. Vombatkere v. union of inida , writ petition (civil) no. 682 of 2021 (supreme court of india 2022).

vinod dua vs union of india, writ petition(criminal) no. 154 of 2020 (supereme court of india june 3, 2021).