Sedition Law in India

Sedition law refers to legislation that makes certain behaviors or statements that are judged to be seditious illegal. Seditious acts often involve deeds or statements that stir up opposition to a government’s established authority. These laws frequently raise questions about freedom of speech, expression, and dissent, even if their primary goal is to protect a country’s stability and security.

BACKGROUND: Sedition laws vary between nations, aiming to prevent behavior that may disrupt public order, threaten national security, or challenge government legitimacy. They are seen as upholding social order and safeguarding state sovereignty. However, detractors argue that these laws historically suppress political dissent, muzzle opposition, and violate civil freedoms. Worries arise that sedition laws could be abused by authorities to target rivals, restrict free expression, and stifle genuine criticism and peaceful demonstrations.

In India, Sedition law is defined under section 124A^[1] 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.^[2]

OBJECTIVES: Depending on the situation and the particular purposes of the governing body, the goals of sedition laws can change. However, the following are some typical goals of sedition laws:

To check contempt of government: Sedition laws frequently serve to safeguard the legitimacy and power of the current administration. They aim to prevent behavior or speech that undermines the legitimacy or authority of the government, protecting its status as the supreme authority.^[3] Contempt of the government should likewise result in penalty if contempt of the court does.^[4]

National security: Protecting the integrity and stability of the state as well as national security is one of the main goals of sedition legislation. With the potential to disrupt governmental operations and endanger the country, these laws seek to outlaw behaviors that can stir up armed conflict, rebellion, or insurrection.^[5]

Preventing Incitement: Sedition laws are intended to discourage and penalize people or organizations that participate in behaviors or utterances that encourage others to engage in acts of terrorism, insurrection, or resistance against the government. These laws aim to avert possible harm and uphold law and order by focusing on such provocation.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Sedition laws have a long history that dates back to the dawn of civilization. Sedition laws have been implemented throughout history and in numerous nations in order to uphold political sway, quell dissent, and defend the legitimacy of the ruling class or government.

COLONIAL ERA AND THE INTRODUCTION OF SEDITION LAW:

During the colonial era, the sedition law’s origins trace back to Thomas Macaulay, a British historian and politician, who first drafted it in 1837. However, it was mysteriously omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. In 1870, Sir James Stephen proposed an amendment to include Section 124A, as he believed a separate provision was necessary to address the offense. This law was one of several harsh measures aimed at silencing dissenting voices.^[6] Indian nationalist leaders faced numerous sedition trials in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Jogendra Chandra Bose’s trial^[7] in 1891 involved editors of a Bengali magazine being convicted for opposing the British government’s decision on the legal age of consent.^{^[8]}

The most well-known examples include the 1922 trial of Mahatma Gandhi^[9] and the three sedition trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak.^[10] For three articles that were published in the weekly, Gandhi and Young India’s publisher Shankerlal Banker were both indicted.

Sedition was defined as “public disorder or the reasonably anticipated or likelihood of public disorder” by the Federal Court of India in 1942.^[11] Sedition requires some kind of rebellion or anarchy, the court noted. The Privy Council later overturned this judgment in King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947).^[12]

POST INDEPENDENCE ERA:

Sedition continued to be a law even after independence announcing a continuous threat on fundamental rights of Indian citizens. After India gained independence in 1947, there have been several notable sedition cases in the country.

Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State of Delhi (1950)^{^[13]} & Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras (1950)^{^[14]} were among the firsts tried after the newly found freedom of the nation. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to impose speech restrictions on the grounds that doing so would disrupt the peace.^[15]
Following the court’s ruling, Article 19 (2) of the Constitution was revised to read “in the interest of public order” instead of “undermining the security of the State.”

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)^{^[16]}: This case led to the landmark Supreme Court judgment that defined the scope and limitations of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that sedition charges can only be applied if there is a direct incitement to violence or public disorder.

Balwant Singh v State of Punjab^{^[17]}: A two-judge SC bench upheld its earlier ruling in Kedar Nath. After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s murder, the petitioners in the Balwant Singh case allegedly chanted inflammatory slogans and were found guilty of sedition by lower courts. The SC cleared the petitioners, ruling that sedition was not committed by just shouting slogans without taking any additional steps to encourage violence.

Binayak Sen case^{^[18]} (2007): Human rights advocate and physician Binayak Sen was accused of sedition for allegedly aiding Maoist militants in Chhattisgarh. Numerous human rights organizations demanded his release as a result of the case’s widespread media coverage. In 2011, Sen was found guilty but later released on bail.

SEDITION CURRENTLY:

As of May 2022, the Supreme Court ordered a hold on Section 124A of the IPC^[19], suspending the filing of new FIRs for sedition. The court heard petitions challenging the colonial-era law, and the government was expected to update the court on any re-examination developments.^{^[20]} In June 2023, the Indian Law Commission endorsed retaining the sedition law with some changes, emphasizing the need for clearer application and interpretation. Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, received the commission’s report, indicating potential amendments to the law.^{^[21]}

INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SEDITION LAW

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITION OF SEDITION:

As mentioned earlier in India, Sedition law was introduced by the British to suppress dissent and maintain their control over the Indian population. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860 included Section 124A, which defined and penalized the offense of sedition.

Section 124A: 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.^[22]

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS:

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): This case is frequently regarded as a landmark ruling on sedition in India. According to the Supreme Court, seditious conduct must directly encourage violence or public disorder in order to qualify as such. Sedition is not simply criticizing the government or expressing disagreement with its policies. The boundaries and restrictions of India’s anti-sedition legislation were established by this ruling.^[23]

Balwant Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court underscored the significance of the Kedar Nath Singh ruling in this case and reaffirmed that a higher standard must be fulfilled in order to bring sedition proceedings. The Court ruled that sedition only occurs when there is a call for violence or an encouragement to disturb public order, not only by chanting slogans or expressing opinions that are critical of the government.^[24]

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011): In this decision, the Supreme Court made the observation that there must be a causal link between the speech or act and the potential for inciting violence or public disorder in order to prove the crime of sedition. If there isn’t a clear encouragement to violence, a person cannot be declared seditious for just belonging to an illegal organization or holding an unpopular opinion.^[25]

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Court ruled that Section 66A of the IT Act was unconstitutional because it made online communication that would annoy, inconvenience, or offend someone illegal. This decision limited the use of sedition-like laws in the digital sphere and stressed the importance of defending the right to freedom of speech and expression.^[26]

Vinod Dua vs Union of India (2020): Vinod Dua, a senior journalist, faced an FIR for criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Center on his YouTube show. The Supreme Court later overturned it, stating that “Every journalist is entitled to protection under the Kedar Nath Singh judgment” with regard to the protection of media professionals’ freedom of speech and expression.^[27]

IMPLICATIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Sedition laws frequently place limitations on people’s capacity to express particular viewpoints or criticize the government, which can have a considerable impact on freedom of expression. The following statements provide a concise summary of the effect:

Chilling effect: The existence of sedition laws may have a “chilling effect”^[28] on free speech, as people and organizations may choose to keep their opinions to themselves or refrain from criticizing the government for fear of repercussions. This may result in the suppression of public discourse, a reduction in the variety of opinions, and a restriction on the free exchange of ideas and information.

Suppression of dissent: Sedition laws can be used to target political opponents, activists, journalists, and people who voice opinions that aren’t in line with those of the government. These rules’ expansive interpretation and application may lead to the prosecution and punishment of those who are exercising their legal rights to peaceful dissent, limiting political debate and opposition.^[29]

International standards and human rights: International principles of free speech and expression may not be compatible with seditious laws. Sedition laws being used to censor acceptable kinds of communication have raised concerns among international human rights organizations, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee. These laws might violate the rights that are protected by international human rights treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[30]

IMPACT ON MEDIA AND JOURNALISM:

Sedition laws hinder press freedom and investigative journalism, leading to legal repercussions and self-censorship. Journalists covering political events or criticizing the government risk prosecution under sedition, fostering fear and limiting accountability. Investigative journalism on corruption, human rights violations, or policy failures is restricted by sedition laws, hindering public access to vital information. Examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak showcase how sedition laws curtail the press, with both facing imprisonment for critical writings. Such restrictions restrict journalists’ role as watchdogs and unbiased reporters, obstructing the public’s right to information. The trials of Mahatma Gandhi^[31] and Bal Gangadhar Tilak^[32] are prime examples to showcase the restrictions that sedition holds on the press.

CRITIQUES AND DEBATES

Since the law’s origin, sedition has been a contentious provision that the British government has used as a tool to stifle political opposition. The word “sedition” was carefully considered and removed from the Indian constitution by the constituent assembly after the country gained its independence. However, the law was quickly reinstated with a wider scope under Nehru’s administration, despite the PM’s personal opposition to it.^[33]

MISUSE AND SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF SEDITION LAW:

Sedition laws stifle constructive criticism and legitimate dissent, inhibiting dynamic public discourse in a healthy democracy. Misuse of these laws can suppress peaceful protests challenging government policies, infringing upon the right to assemble and freedom of association. Discriminatory application targets marginalized communities, violating human rights and equal protection. Scholarly and intellectual debate may suffer as academic freedom is restricted. Political dissent faces criminalization due to the broad executive discretion of sedition laws, leading to abuse. Such misuse contradicts India’s international obligations under the ICCPR, which protects freedom of expression.

LEGITIMACY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEDITION LAW:

Supporters of sedition laws argue that they are necessary for maintaining public order, national security, and stability. They aim to prevent violence, rebellion, and insurrection against the government. Advocates claim these laws defend the elected government and uphold the rule of law, protecting the state’s integrity. They also argue that sedition laws can address hate speech and extremist ideologies to ensure social harmony. Furthermore, these laws are said to uphold moral, religious, and cultural values, preserving a society’s core principles. The Indian constitution imposes constraints on freedom of speech (Article 19(2)) (Freedom of Speech and Expression)^[34] to ensure responsible exercise. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for incitement to violence or disturbance as a critical part of the law. The Law Commission of India recommended penalizing acts intending to disturb public order or overthrow the government with violence and illegal methods.

CONCLUSION

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

The research on India’s sedition laws reveals a complex issue involving freedom of speech, national security, and the balance between state authority and individual rights. Enshrined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the law has faced criticism for suppressing dissent and promoting self-censorship. Proponents argue it protects national security and upholds the rule of law. However, evidence shows misuse against legitimate dissent, raising concerns about its compatibility with democratic principles and human rights standards. As India evolves as a democracy, a reevaluation of the law’s application, clarity in defining seditious activities, and safeguards against arbitrary use are necessary. Meaningful dialogue and reform can ensure a just and democratic society that respects both national security and freedom of expression.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND REFORMS

Future possibilities for the sedition law in India depend on making substantial revisions that find a balance between protecting freedom of speech and expression and national security considerations. India may establish a legal framework that supports democratic ideals while successfully tackling possible risks to national security by introducing precise definitions, ensuring severe judicial scrutiny, and embracing global human rights standards.

Introducing an intent-based approach to the application of the sedition law could be considered. Requiring evidence of a direct intention to incite violence or overthrow the government would help distinguish between genuine threats to national security and mere expression of dissenting views.

IPC Section 124A’s phrasing and syntax might be revised to make it more precise and less susceptible to arbitrary interpretation, which would help guarantee the law’s just and impartial application.

Sedition laws from the colonial era have previously been found to infringe on the right to freedom of expression by courts in numerous former British territories. The law was declared illegal by the Ugandan Constitutional Court in 2010. In 2018, the Economic Community of West African States’ Community Court of Justice (often referred to as the ECOWAS Court) ruled that the Gambia’s sedition offense breached the right to freedom of expression in accordance with African regional and international law. When declaring the sedition statute illegal in Nigeria, the Court of Appeal remarked in 1985: “Let us not diminish the freedom gained from our colonial masters by resorting to laws enacted by them to suit their purpose.” India must pay attention to that message.

^[1] Pen. Code, § 124 A

^[2] Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/sedition-law-explained-origin-history-legal-challenge-supreme-court-7911041/ / (last visited July. 17, 2023)

^[3] BYJU’S, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/sedition-law-india-section-124a-ipc/ (last visited July. 18, 2023)

^[4] India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/use-and-misuse-of-sedition-law-section-124a-of-ipc-divd-1607533-2019-10-09 (last visited July. 18, 2023)

^[5] Drishti IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sedition-law-7 (last visited July. 17, 2023)

^[6] India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/use-and-misuse-of-sedition-law-section-124a-of-ipc-divd-1607533-2019-10-09 (last visited July. 17, 2023)

^[7] Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose and Ors., (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35

^[8] Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sedition-in-india-a-timeline/ (last visited July. 18, 2023)

^[9] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, In re, 1920 SCC OnLine Bom 28

^[10] Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1917) 19 BOMLR 211

^[11] Niharendu Dutt Majumdar and Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1939 Cal 703

^[12] King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, (1947) LR 74 IA 89.