1

2
3
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speechand organization, that tends toward insurrection against
the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of
discontenting (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though
not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious
libel. A sedition ist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable
under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal code
shas been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting
sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological
definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.

What is Sedition law and what does it say in the Indian Penal Code:

 Section 124-A in the Indian Penal Code, named 'Sedition', explains sedition in wide and
magnanimous terms.

 It says '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
inIndia' shall be punished with life imprisonment.
 The explanations which the Indian Penal Code gives are that 'the expression 'disaffection
'includes disloyalty and all feelings of hate.
 It also says that comments that express strong disapproval of 'the measures of the
Government, with a view to obtain their desired modifications by lawful means, without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute
anoffense under this section.'
 The law was originally drafted by Thomas Macaulay.
 It was not a part of IPC in the 1860s and was even dropped from the law. It
wasintroduced in the IPC in the year 1870.
 Many Indian freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar
Tilak,were charged with sedition during freedom struggle.
 When the first amendment was introduced, which also included detailed limitations
onfree speech, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was categorical in his belief that
in the offence of sedition was fundamentally unconstitutional. He had said 'now so far as
Iam concerned [Section 124-A] is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have
no place both for practical and historical reasons. The sooner we get rid of it the better.'

4
  Besides Kanhaiya Kumar, Patidar leader Hardik Patel was slapped with sedition charges.

 In the year 2014, some of the Kashmiri students were charged with sedition forsupporting
Pakistan in a cricket match between India and Pakistan.

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE :-
The explanation behind this anomaly lies in the colonial-era origin of this law. It was included in
IPC by the British back in 1870, exclusively to censure dissenting voices from Indian media,
intellectuals, and freedom fighters. Little wonder, then, that the law demands allegiance to
government, and not to the nation. Being a Victorian-era law, the demand from all citizens to
love the government was couched in the euphemistic “disaffection”-- described bluntly by the
presiding judge as “absence of affection” towards the government, during a trial against Bal
Gangadhar Tilak .

Mahatma Gandhi, also a victim of this draconian law, eloquently critiqued disaffection towards
government as grounds for sedition by saying, “Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated
by the law. If one has no affection for a person, one should be free to give the fullest expression
to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence.”

He went on to excoriate the law as “the prince among the political sections of the Indian
Penalcode designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE:-
Post-Independence, erstwhile Indian leaders realised the dangers posed by this law to freedom of
speech and expression, contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, in an independent India.
The Constituent Assembly moved an amendment to drop sedition from the list of restrictions on
this fundamental right. On this occasion, highlighting the change needed in interpretation of
sedition law brought about by India’s independence, KM Munshi said, “a line must be drawn
between criticism of Government which should be welcome and incitement which would
undermine the security or order on which civilized life is based, or which is calculated to
overthrow the State.”

In 1951, India’s PM Jawaharlal Nehru publicly voiced his dislike of Section 124A, saying, “that
particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for

5
 practical and historical reasons.” However, this was ironic given these words were spoken on
the occasion of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which imposed greater restrictions on
theright to free speech.

The sedition law died a judicial death in 1958 when the Allahabad High Court declared it ultra
vires Article 19(1)(a), only to be resuscitated in 1962 by the Supreme Court, in Kedar NathSingh
vs State Of Bihar. However, the SC greatly reduced the scope of offences under which this law
could be applied. To make sure section 124A did not impinge on the fundamental right to free
speech, the SC added, “strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of
government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come
within the section. Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of
actions of the government, without exciting those feelings, which generate the inclination
tocause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.”

Thus, the court sided with an effects-based test(based on the implication of words) rather than
content-based test (which examines the text closely) in deciding sedition cases, much like in
American law. Further, the court went as far as to say that section 124A would be ultra vires
Article 19(1)(a) if it were applied in case of “words written or spoken which merely create
disaffection or feelings of enmity against the Government.”7

6
MEANING OF SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A OF IPC :-
 “Whoever bring or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the government shall be punished with imprisonment for life or three years”.

Explanation-1: The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
[basic idea is to prevent misuse of right to free speech by anti-social elements].

Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a

view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.[This explanation clearly
states that “dissent or criticism without fueling hatred or violence”cannot be considered as
sedition]

Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the

government, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section [This explanation clears states that sharp criticism of
government policy and administrative action doesn’t come under sedition].”

TYPES OF SEDITION :-

Stephen has defined sedition, as applicable under English law, as a conduct which has, either
asits object, or as its natural consequences, the unlawful display of dissatisfaction with the
Government or with the existing order of society. The seditions conduct may be by words, by
deeds, or by writing.

Five specific heads of sedition may be enumerated according to the object of the accused:-

(1)To excite disaffection against the King, Government, or Constitution, or against Parliament or
the administrative of justice;

(2)To promote, by unlawful means, any alteration in Church or State;

(3)To incite a disturbance of the peace;

(4)To raise discontent among the King’s subjects and

(5)To incite class hatred.

7
But criticism of political matters is not of itself seditious. The test is the manner in which it is
done. Candid and honest discussion is permitted. The law only interferes when the discussion
passes the bounds of fair and honest criticism against the Government.

INGREDIENTS OF SEDITION:-
Section 124A, IPC defines the offence of sedition and prescribes punishments for sedition which
may extend up to imprisonment for life, and fine, pr imprisonment up to three years and fine.The
word sedition does not occur in the body of the section. It finds place only as a marginalnote to
the section which is not an operative part of the sedition, but simply states the name bywhich the
offence defined in the section is known.

The following are the essential ingredients of the section, viz.,

(1)Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred; or

(2)Exciting or attempting to excite disaffection against the Government of India;

(3) Such act or attempt may be done (a) by words, either spoken or written, or (b)by signs, or (c)
by visible representation; and

(4)The act must be intentional.

8
 SEDITION LAW vs FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION:-

It is argued that along with colonial laws like criminal defamation, laws on obscenity and
blasphemy, the sedition law also runs against the ideal of Freedom of Expression, guaranteed
under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian constitution. Why such an argument against an otherwise
pious act which thwarts acts threatening India’s sovereignty?

 Gandhiji was one of the greatest opponent of the sedition act. It is only appropriate to
quote his defense, during the 1922 sedition trial. He said, “…Section 124 A under which
I amhappily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC
designed tosuppress the liberty of the citizen Affection cannot be manufactured or
regulated by the law If one has no affection for a person, one should be free to give the
fullest expression tohis disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or
incite to violence But thesection under which Mr Banker and I are charged is one under
which mere promotion ofdisaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried
under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted
under it. I consider it a privilege,therefore, to be charged under that section. I have
endeavored to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my disaffection. I have no
personal ill-will against any single administrator; much less can I have any disaffection
towards the King’s person. But I hold it a virtue to be disaffected towards a Government
which in its totality has done more harmto India than previous systems .India is less
manly under the British rule than she ever wasbefore. Holding such a belief, I consider it
to be a sin to have affection for the system.
 The act faced judicial cut in the early days of independence itself. Romesh Thapar case,
in which the Madras government, after declaring the Communist Party illegal, banned the
left-leaning magazine Crossroads for being overly critical of the Nehru government. The
court held that banning a publication because it would endanger public safety or public
order was not supported by the constitutional scheme since the exceptions to 19 (1) (a)
were specific and had to entail a danger to the security of the state. The second case
related to an order passed by the chief commissioner, Delhi, asking the RSS mouth piece
Organizer to submit all communal matter and material related to Pakistan to scrutiny.
Nehru’s government decided to amend theConstitution (1st constitutional amendment),
inserting the words ‘public order’ and ‘relationswith friendly states’ into Article 19 (2);
and the word ‘reasonable’ before ‘restrictions’, as a safeguard against misuse by the
government

Every case of sedition has a common defence that the action was done in pursuance of
Article19(1)(a). i.e. It was his freedom of speech under which he said those statements. But

9
 what people are not aware of is Article 19(2) which states that a speech or an act should not
be something which can invoke or incite others against the state. If something is capable of
causing unrest in the nation, it can’t be defended by using Article 19(1)(a). Such an act which
incites others to destroy the unity and integrity of the nation will be termed as sedition and
notfree speech.

NEED OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA :-

The law of sedition was introduced by the Colonial Government to suppress the voices of
Indians against them. But now, the Colonial Government has gone; India is an independent
country. So do we still need sedition law? If yes, then for whom? And if no, then on what
grounds?

The Indian pledge starts with; India is my country. All Indians are my brothers and sisters,
butthese lines have an exception, not all Indians are united. There are some people within the
country who can’t see the country growing, who don’t want peace, who want to break the unity
and integrity of the nation. Accordingly, we need sedition laws for such people for inciting their
fellow citizens against their motherland.

Recently in 2016, we have seen cases where one single man was successful in gathering a crowd
of hundreds just by abusing the nation and calling for its breakdown. Such incident smake us
more willing to think that sedition law is needed even in the Independent India.

To support this point we can consider the case of Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the
Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union and other students. This man named Kanhaiya
wasstanding on a bench in the university’s campus and was shouting “BHARAT TERE TUKDE
HONGE,( INDIA WILL BE IN PIECES )” and many such anti-national slogans which were
attracting the people of his mentality to his side. A case of sedition against this man and several
unknown students was lodged at Vasant Kunj (North) police station after the Home Minister
Rajnath Singh talked to then Delhi Police Commissioner B.S. Bassi and released a statement: “If
anyone raises anti-Indian slogans, tries to raise questions on the country’s unity and integrity,
they will not be spared.”

10
 CASES :-

Kedarnath v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.

FACTS :-
 One Kedar Nath Singh a member of the Forward Communist Party in Bihar was
involvedin terming the officers of C.I.D as “dogs”, the Indian National Congress as
“Goondas”, he went on saying that he believe in revolution, which will come and in the
flames of whichthe capitalists, zamindars and the Congress leaders of India, who have
made it their profession to loot the country, will be reduced to ashes and on their ashes
will be established a Government of the poor and the downtrodden people of India. He
also targeted Vinobha Bhave’s attempts to redistribute land.
 Subsequently, Kedar Nath Singh was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 124-
A(Sedition) and Section 505 (Public Mischief) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal, a Single Judge Bench of The Patna
High Court comprising Justice Naqui Imam upheld the conviction and accordingly
dismissed the appeal. In his judgement, it was observed by the learned judge that “the
subject-matter of the charge against the appellant was nothing but a vilification of the
Government; that it was full of incitements to revolution and that the speech taken as
awhole was certainly seditious. It is not a speech criticising any particular policy of the
Government or criticising any of its measures.”
 While dealing with these two judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion
that if the judgement and interpretation of the Federal Court are accepted then the
impugned sections would come within the ambit of permissible legislative restrictionson
the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, ifthe
judgement and interpretations of the Privy Council be accepted then the impugned
sections are liable to be quashed as unconstitutional in view of Article 19(1)(a) read
withArticle 19(2). In this manner, the scope of the impugned sections was restricted and
the Constitutional validiity of both the impugned sections was upheld. Accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed and appeal of other connected matter was remanded back to the
concerned High Court.

ISSUES INVOLVED :-

1. Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are ultra vires in view of
Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution?
2. Whether the intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order,
orincitement to violence is required to constitute the offence of sedition?

11
JUDGEMENT :-
It held that if sedition is understood to mean incitement of disorder, the section will lie within the
ambit of permissible legislative restrictions (it is ok to charge with Sedition in this case)
mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression.

[In simple terms, if someone tries to incite violence by misusing right to free speech, then his
orher actions amount to sedition]

Without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance of law and order by the use
of words which merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against the government, then
such an interpretation would make the section unconstitutional.

In very short, as long as there is no incitement of disorder or hatred or violence, there is

nosedition.

The Quenn Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak I.L.R(1898) 22 BOM.112 :-

FACTS :-
Perhaps the most famous cases of sedition in history have been of our country’s freedom fighters
against colonial rule. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, staunch advocate of India’s freedom wascharged
with seditionon two occasions.

 The first in 1897 for speeches that allegedly incited the violent behaviour of others,which
resulted in the death of two British officers. He was convicted and released on bail in
1898, and in 1909 prosecuted again for seditious writing in his newspaper Kesari.
 1897 was the first instance where Section 124 (a) from the IPC was identified and
applied. Incitement to violence and insurrection was immaterial in the eyes of the
presiding Privy Council in regards to the culpability of a person that’s been charged with
sedition.

JUDGEMENT:-
The scope of the offense was expanded by the colonial courts and mere attempts to incite
feelings of disaffection could be seen as sedition. The Tilak case defined sedition law under
Section 124A for the first time as follows; The offense consistsin exciting or attempting to excite
in others certain bad feelings towards the government. It is not the exciting or attempting to
excite mutiny or rebellion orany sort of actual disturbances, great or small. Whether any
disturbances or out break was caused by these articles is absolutely immaterial.

12
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR (2013) 12 S.C.C.73 :-
This case is monumental in India’s jurisprudence as its judgment took down Section 66A of the
IT Act, sought to be in violation of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India that guarantees the
right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. A student of law at the time, Shreya
Singhal filed a petition in 2012 seeking an amendment in the section 66A, triggered by the arrest
of two young girls in Mumbai, for a post on Facebook that was critical of the shut down of the
city after the death of Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray; one of them posted the comment,the
other merely ‘liked’ it.

What’s critical about this judgment is the court’s ruling that a person could not be tried fors
edition unless their speech, however “unpopular,” offensive or inappropriate, had an established
connection with any provocation to violence or disruption in public order. The Supreme Court
distinguished between “advocacy” and “incitement”, stating that only the latter is punishable by
law. The Supreme Court judgement came after three years of the petition’s filing in 2015, but
Shreya did not deter. “I did feel saddened in between but never lost hope. I was also hurt to see
that despite the matter pending before the SC, police continued to arrest people under section
66A of the IT act. What was heartening was that the arrests did not deter people from posting
comments,” Shreya told Hindustan Times.

Dr. Binayak Sen vs. State of Chattisgarh(2007):-

Dr. Binayak Sen was charged for sedition, amongst other things, for allegedly aiding naxalites,
and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Session Court in Raipur. He was accused of helping
insurgents, who were very active in the region at the time, by passing notes from a Maoist
prisoner that was his patient to someone outside the jail. Denying all charges against him, Dr.Sen
stated he was under the constant supervision of prison officials during his treatments so such an
action would not be possible. It was his criticism of the killings committed by a vigilante group
that prompted his arrest and subsequent accusations, Dr. Sen stated to The Wall Street Journal.
Salwa Judum, is the group he’s referring to, designed and supported by the state government of
Chhattisgarh to curb the insurgency in the villages of indigenous tribes where it thrived,
according to them. But Dr. Sen, who’s a human-rights activist apart from being a paediatrician,
claims that the groups real job’s to clear village land that’s rich in iron ore, bauxite and diamonds
for it to be quarried.

His arrest gained a lot of international attention, and the U.S.-based Global Health Council
awarded Dr. Sen its 2008 Jonathan Mann Award for global health and human rights
inrecognition of his services to poor and indigenous communities in India. In May later that
year,22 Nobel laureates sent a letter to the Indian government criticizing the incarceration and
asking that he be released to receive the award in person. “We also wish to express grave

13
concern that Dr. Sen appears to be incarcerated solely for peacefully exercising his fundamental
human rights…and that he is charged under two internal security laws that do not comport with
international human rights standards,” they said in the letter.

Conclusion :-
The law of sedition was given to us by the colonial government in terms of Section 124A on
which we are still relying. The law still has the same relevance as it had during the colonial
rule,the only change is that the evil before independence were the freedom fighters and the evil
snow are the anti-national elements. Before independence sedition was a negative law for us
asthe people who were fighting for us were put behind the bars but after independence it has
proved to be a positive law as the people going against and invoking others to go against the
nation can be punished, which is required for the unity and integrity of the nation.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY :-

 https://homegrown.co.in/article/47919/5-landmark-cases-that-changed-the-way-we-look-
at-indias-sedition-law
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/sedition-law-in-india/
 (https://lawtimesjournal.in/sedition-section-124a-ipc/)
 (https://www.pmfias.com/sedition-section-124a-ipc/)
 (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/criticism-is-not-sedition/article29611491.ece)
 (http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-650-section-124a-was-a-colonial-
weapon-of-britisher.html)
 (https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-sedition/)

15