This blog is written by Harapriya sahoo, a Second-year law student of SOA National Institute of Law, Odisha

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code s Section 124A addresses sedition, a crime against the state. Sedition penalizes any content that incites hatred, disdain, or disloyalty toward the government with the intent to cause violence or public disturbance in the nation. It is not regarded as seditious activity when criticism is used to challenge and amend legislative or administrative decisions made by the government. The term "sedition law" refers to a body of legislation that makes speech or actions that are thought to pose a threat to the government's authority or the stability of the state illegal. These laws have their roots in past attempts to silence criticism and keep power, and they continue to spark arguments about the fine line between national security needs and individual freedoms. This blog explores the historical context, recent developments, and the broader implications of sedition laws in India.

Historical context

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), drafted in 1860 by the British colonial rulers, contains the legal definition of sedition in India. According to the clause, sedition is any act that incites hatred, contempt, or discontent with the legally established government. Sedition carries a potential life sentence in prison, a fine, or both.

The sedition law survived the colonial era and remained in the Indian Penal Code even after India attained independence in 1947, despite its original introduction being intended to silence Indian freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The law has been used numerous times over the years to detain journalists, activists, political figures, and even students who have criticized the government.

Nonetheless, the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case in 1962 marked the start of the actual constitutional discussion surrounding sedition. Although limiting its application to acts involving "incitement to violence" or "intention to create public disorder," the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A. Although this ruling brought some clarity, the meaning of sedition has developed over the years and is frequently applied in ways that opponents argue infringe upon the freedom of speech protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Recent Development

The use of sedition laws in India has drawn increasing public and legal concern in recent years, especially with the rise in cases under Section 124A. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data indicates a notable increase in sedition cases over the last ten years, coupled with a low conviction rate. This has led many to contend that the law is being used more for intimidation than for the purposes of justice.

1. Supreme Court Intervention (2022–2023): The Indian Supreme Court recognized that the law needs to be reexamined in light of its frequent misuse and took a proactive approach on the issue of sedition in May 2022. This was a historic decision. The Court ordered the temporary suspension of Section 124A, prohibiting the filing of new cases under the provision, and postponing the resolution of existing cases until further notice. The bench, presided over by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, declared that the country's shifting political, social, and economic landscape required a review of the legislation. This action signaled a significant change in the way the courts would handle sedition cases.

2. Law Commission Recommendations (2023): The Law Commission of India was entrusted with investigating the applicability and appropriateness of sedition laws in a contemporary democracy in response to the Supreme Court's observations. The Law Commission recommended keeping the sedition law in place in 2023 but made some changes to make sure it isn't abused. They contended that although the law plays a vital role in upholding public order and national security, it needs more precise definitions and stringent protections against arbitrary application.

3. Political and Public Debate: There has been a growing divide in politics with regard to sedition laws. Critics claim that the law has been weaponized to target dissenting voices, whether they be journalists exposing government inefficiencies or activists protesting contentious policies. These critics are primarily found in opposition parties, civil society, and human rights organizations. However, supporters of the law—mostly members of the ruling party—claim that

sedition laws are required to defend the country against terrorist attacks, insurgencies, and separatist movements.

Implications

The nation's democracy, civil liberties, and security are all significantly impacted by the current discussion in India about sedition laws. Here are some important implications:

1. Court Backlog and Resource Misuse: The growing number of sedition cases and the low conviction rate burden the court system and take resources away from more urgent criminal cases. Due to its extreme politicization, the sedition law frequently serves more as a tool for intimidation and harassment of people than it does for the purposes of justice. Although the Supreme Court's suspension of Section 124A is a positive step, it has left several cases unresolved, which has led to judicial delays and confusion in court proceedings.

2. Effect on Journalists and Activists: Sedition laws have been applied often to journalists and activists who reveal human rights abuses, corruption, or other shortcomings in the government. For example, charges of sedition have been brought against a number of journalists who have covered delicate subjects like violence related to caste, COVID-19 mismanagement, and protests by farmers. Concerns regarding media freedom and the function of a free press in preserving democracy have been brought up by this expanding trend.

Conclusion

The conflict between maintaining democratic freedoms and preserving national security is brought to light by the current discussion surrounding sedition laws in India. Even though the law may have been significant historically, the fundamental ideas of free speech and civil rights are frequently violated when it is used improperly to quell dissent. Potential changes in the legal system are indicated by recent judicial interventions and reform recommendations. Future developments regarding Section 124A will influence the delicate balance between individual rights and state authority, thereby affecting the long-term viability of India's democratic system.

.

References

1. Sedition Law. (n.d.). Drishti IAS. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news- analysis/sedition-law-8

2. Jain, B., & India, T. O. (2023, August 12). Sedition to go, but “endangering unity and integrity of India” could result in life term. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sedition-to-go-but-endangering-unity-and- integrity-of-india-could-result-in-life-term/articleshow/102661307.cms

3. Manupatra. (n.d.). Articles – Manupatra. https://articles.manupatra.com/article- details/The-origins-and-validity-of-Sedition-Law-in-India

4. Roy, R. (2023, September 14). Supreme Court refers challenge to constitutionality of sedition law to a larger Bench of at least 5 judges. Internet Freedom Foundation. https://internetfreedom.in/sc-sedition-update-larger-bench/