SEDITION LAW
Subhas Chandra Bose:
“The struggle for freedom is intertwined with the need to ensure security. While we must uphold
the right to speak and express, we must also safeguard the nation’s integrity.”
When Subhash Chandra said the above lines, we were fighting one enemy, our freedom
struggle has ended but the nation constantly battles to maintain this freedom. In this new era
with our nation’s already diverse and voluminous population, the labyrinth connecting our
freedoms to our national security has become even more perplexing. To navigate this labyrinth
certain restrictions like contempt of court, blasphemy and the sedition law is a much needed
torch in the hands of our government to prevent our citizens from traversing on the wrong path.
The sedition law in India, codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was
originally introduced during British colonial rule to suppress dissent. The then British Viceroy,
Lord Macaulay, the law aimed to “secure the tranquility and loyalty of the subject.” The Section
defined sedition as any action that “excites disaffection” towards the government, encompassing
a broad range of activities from criticism to outright rebellion. Throughout the Raj, this section
was used to suppress activists in favor of national independence, including Tilak and Mahatma
Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.
Its application and relevance in modern India have been subjects of intense debate. Recent
legislative reforms and judicial scrutiny have prompted a re-evaluation of sedition laws in the
context of contemporary criminal justice. Recent high-profile cases illustrate this issue. For
instance, in 2016, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was charged with sedition for allegedly
making anti-national statements at a university event. The case was seen by many as an
attempt to stifle political dissent. Similarly, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi faced sedition charges in
2012 for depicting the government in a critical light through his cartoons.
New Criminal Laws and Sedition
The enactment of new criminal laws, particularly the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya (BNS) Bills in December 2023, marks a
significant overhaul of India’s criminal justice system. These laws aim to modernize and
streamline legal processes while addressing contemporary issues.
A major change in the BNS is the removal of sedition. However, Section 152 of the BNS retains
the essence of Section 124A but in a vague manner. This change follows the Law Commission's
2023 Report, which suggested retaining sedition with amendments based on Kedar Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar, 1962. Section 152's terms like "subversive activities" and "endangers
sovereignty" are not clearly defined, potentially leading to problematic applications. Individuals
might be arrested or investigated based on misinterpretations, with the judiciary's rulings
needed to clarify these limits and prevent undue restriction of freedoms.
Subhas Chandra Bose:
“The struggle for freedom is intertwined with the need to ensure security. While we must uphold
the right to speak and express, we must also safeguard the nation’s integrity.”
When Subhash Chandra said the above lines, we were fighting one enemy, our freedom
struggle has ended but the nation constantly battles to maintain this freedom. In this new era
with our nation’s already diverse and voluminous population, the labyrinth connecting our
freedoms to our national security has become even more perplexing. To navigate this labyrinth
certain restrictions like contempt of court, blasphemy and the sedition law is a much needed
torch in the hands of our government to prevent our citizens from traversing on the wrong path.
The sedition law in India, codified under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was
originally introduced during British colonial rule to suppress dissent. The then British Viceroy,
Lord Macaulay, the law aimed to “secure the tranquility and loyalty of the subject.” The Section
defined sedition as any action that “excites disaffection” towards the government, encompassing
a broad range of activities from criticism to outright rebellion. Throughout the Raj, this section
was used to suppress activists in favor of national independence, including Tilak and Mahatma
Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.
Its application and relevance in modern India have been subjects of intense debate. Recent
legislative reforms and judicial scrutiny have prompted a re-evaluation of sedition laws in the
context of contemporary criminal justice. Recent high-profile cases illustrate this issue. For
instance, in 2016, student leader Kanhaiya Kumar was charged with sedition for allegedly
making anti-national statements at a university event. The case was seen by many as an
attempt to stifle political dissent. Similarly, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi faced sedition charges in
2012 for depicting the government in a critical light through his cartoons.
New Criminal Laws and Sedition
The enactment of new criminal laws, particularly the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya (BNS) Bills in December 2023, marks a
significant overhaul of India’s criminal justice system. These laws aim to modernize and
streamline legal processes while addressing contemporary issues.
A major change in the BNS is the removal of sedition. However, Section 152 of the BNS retains
the essence of Section 124A but in a vague manner. This change follows the Law Commission's
2023 Report, which suggested retaining sedition with amendments based on Kedar Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar, 1962. Section 152's terms like "subversive activities" and "endangers
sovereignty" are not clearly defined, potentially leading to problematic applications. Individuals
might be arrested or investigated based on misinterpretations, with the judiciary's rulings
needed to clarify these limits and prevent undue restriction of freedoms.
