FINAL DRAFT OF PROJECT

The subject of reference: Basics of Legislation

Topic for the Project: History of Sedition Law [Section 124(A)] in the
Republic Of India and its implications in the modern times.

• Objective of the project: The objective of this project is fairly simple, to understand
and analyse the history and thought process that went behind the formulation of
legislation as a law, that is promulgating and evolving since the British era. The
objective of this project also focuses on the importance of such legislation in a
democracy where checks and balances are required to ensure judicial and equitable
use of rights allotted to the citizens. It isto also study recent cases in the jurisdiction
of the Republic of India, analyse the reasoning behind them and give fair conclusive
opinion upon the fine working of Section 124(a) of the Indian Penal Code. This
project will also scrutinize the importance of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constituiton
and how its relevance in the modern contemprory times works in the spectrum of
Indian Democracy, which is also considered as the largest democracy in the world.

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DECLARATION

I humbly submit that Index of Authorities, references and links used for the purpose of research

in the project are duly recognized under the column of “Index of Authorities”. Furthermore, this

project is for no award or degree purpose in any other institution rather than Dr. Ram Manohar

Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow and has been created for the sole purpose of

academic check in the session of 2020-21. I thank and acknowledge Prof. (Dr.) Shashank

Shekhar Sir and Prof. (Dr.) C.M Jariwala Sir for giving me a chance to research on this topic and

to all the sources which turned out to be helpful and informative in the course of project making.

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, (1917) 19 BOMLR 211. ................................................ 4

Binayak Sen v. State of Chattisgarh, APPLICATION U/S 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. ............................................................................................................................ 8

Kanahiya Kumar v. State of NCT, W.P.(CRL) 558/2016 & Crl.M.A. Nos.3237/2016 &

3262/2016 .................................................................................................................................... 9

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955. ........................................................................ 7

Sanskar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, Cri.PIL 3-2015............................................................. 11

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523. ................................................................ 13

Statutes

Ind. Constitution art. 13. ................................................................................................................. 6

Ind. Constitution art. 19(2).............................................................................................................. 7

Indian Penal Code § 124, 1 (1870). ................................................................................................ 3

Books

Law of Sedition by Shivani Lohiya………………………………………………………………………1

3
 CHAPTER I

HISTORY OF SEDITION LAW

1. Draft Provision in 1837

Sedition1 as an idea was advanced in and by the Britishers in the British Colonial India,
and was presented by one Thomas Macaulay through his draft proposition in the time of
1837. In 1834 Macaulay acknowledged an encouragement to serve on the as of late made
Supreme Council of India, anticipating that he could save from his compensation enough
to give him a skill forever. He drafted a reformatory code that later turned into the
premise of Indian criminal law, the IPC. This arrangement of Sedition was presented in
the prelimineary readings, investigating and drafting of the Indian Penal Code, making it
one of the prior laws enlisted durimg the frontier period. The dissidence law was
presented as an offense through proviso 113 of the Draft Indian Penal Code by Thomas
Macaulay in the year 1837. The purpose behind its fuse in the draft was the expansion in
renegade by the Indian progressives against the organization rulers. The Sedition law
wasn't the solitary law which was passed by the British government to stifle the voices of
Indian progressives. Different laws, for example, the Vernacular Press Act, 1878,
[repealed in 1881], the Newspapers (Incitement of Offenses) Act, 1908, and the Indian
Press Act, 1910 [repealed in 1921] – gave lawful support to the British government to
limit voices that conflicted with it. However, for the limit of this task, we will be
adhering to the Sedition Law.
2. Indian Penal Code’s Definition
Indian Penal Code defines sedition in the following manner:
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, 102 [***] the Government estab-lished by law in 103
[India], [***] shall be punished with 104 [im-prisonment for life], to which fine may be
added, or with impris-onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be
1
Indian Penal Code § 124, 1 (1870).

4
 added, or with fine. Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty
and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the
meas-ures 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. Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of
the admin-istrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.]

As per the given definition, it was made clear that the law of sedition had two major components,
these two major components were taken from the main definition of Sedition where it was
mentioned that:

• Sedition contains three actions, namely, an act, conduct or a speech. Any of these actions,
when performed against the state or the government were made punishable.

• All these actions were intended to incite people to rebel against the state, government or
the nation.

3. Sedition Pre-Independence (Bal Gangadhar Tilak Case2)

India's law with respect to free discourse has experienced a decent measure of changes
throughout the long term directly from the initiation of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in
1860. Maybe the most well known instances of Sedition in history have been of our
country's political dissidents contrary to pilgrim rule. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, firm promoter
of India's opportunity was accused of dissidence and sedition on two events. The first in
1897 for addresses that purportedly actuated the savage conduct of others, which brought
about the demise of two British officials. He was indicted and delivered on bail in 1898,
and in 1909 arraigned again for rebellious writing in his paper Kesari. Tilak was
condemned to year and a half in jail for affecting the individuals against the British. Tilak
was protected by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, later by Joseph Baptista and later without
anyone else helped by a battery of guidance. The meetings judge was as a matter of fact

2
Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, (1917) 19 BOMLR 211.

5
Tilak's direction in the 1897 preliminary, DD Davar. Tilak was condemned to six years of
transportation to Burma; three under each part. Leave to interest privy Council made by
Baptista for the benefit of Tilak was declined. Tilak carried out his punishment which
was driven to straightforward detainment in Mandalay and later got back to India with
considerably more effect on the governmental issues in the country. Finish of the case
was that however Bal Gangadhar Tilak didn't really needed to send an insubordinate
assertion and was simply concouring a message of opportunity and freedom, it was
misinterpreted in a rebellios way for which he needed to deal with dissidence
indictments.

6
 CHAPTER II
PRESENT SCENARIO

1. Sedition Law Post Independence

The constituent assembly debates tells us that weaving of sedition law under
article 133 was not acceptable to the framers of Constitution as a restriction on the
freedom of speech and expression but it continued to find its presence in the penal
statute as it is. During the discussion, Shri K.M Munshi said that “The sedition
law is not made an offence in order to minister to the wounded vanity of
Government. Public disorder is the gist of the offence. The acts or words
complained of must either incite disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable
men that is their intention or tendency” While introducing the first Constitution
amendment bill in 1951, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru spoke on the law of sedition
and emphasized on the particular section being an obnoxious one having no place
in any body of laws. After all the heated discussions in the Cabinet Meeting of
1946-1948, Sedition Law was kept as one of the instruments of ensuring
“reasonable restriction” on the Fundamental right of Free Speech and Expression,
under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

2. Article 19(2)4 and its implications regarding Sedition

In the Kedarnath case 5[Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955],
where the Supreme court examined the constitutional validity of Section 124A,
the court had an opportunity to consider the scope of subversive speech. Given
that the word sedition by itself does not appear in Article 19(2) or in the
reasonable restrictions provision, the court could uphold 124A only if it was
brought within the ambit of ‘public order’. So, it was fairly concluded that the
word ‘Sedition’ would be construed only in the cases pertaining to ‘public order’.
However, public order itself being a very subjective thing, invited numerous

3
Ind. Constitution art. 13.
4
Ind. Constitution art. 19(2).
5
Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955.

7
 instances where the law of sedition could be abused from both the sides of the
coin. There has always been a huge debate on the ‘reasonability’ of punishments
and penalties under Article 19(2) and most of the times, this discussion has turned
towardsa negative side only. Let’s further see what are the kind of abuses had
have occurred in the realms of sedition law in India, and match it from both
government and citizen’s perspective.

3. Abuses of Sedition Law

A bare perusal of the relevant section gives an ambiguous impression. The words
‘attempts or excites disaffection towards the Government’ is in itself vague and
stands subject to different interpretations of investigating officer as well as courts.
The problem lies in the fact that there remains a wide gap between the words-
“disaffection”, “contempt” and “hatred”. Interpretation of such cryptic words
gives ample room for its gross misuse by stretching the words to mean absolutely
anything. Although the explanation to the section provides that comments
expressing an disapprobation of an administrative or other action of the
Government without inciting hatred or contempt does not amount as sedition, still
we are witnessing such gross misuse of this section.
The court has categorically expressed in the case Balwant Singh v Union of India
1995 that every expression of criticism is not sedition and the real intent of the
speech is to be taken into consideration before beaming it as a seditious act. In
this particular case, the court refused to penalise the accused who resorted to
sloganeering against the State (Khalistan Zindabad etc) as it did not amount to
any threat to the government or gave rise to any enmity between any religious
groups.

4. Binayak Sen Case 6(A Landmark Bail)

On 14 May 2007, Sen was arrested in Bilaspur on the charges of acting as a
courier between jailed Naxalite leader Narayan Sanyal (politician) and
businessman Piyush Guha, also accused of having links with Naxalites. Sen had

6
Binayak Sen v. State of Chattisgarh, APPLICATION U/S 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

8
met the 70-year-old Sanyal 33 times in Raipur jail, though all the visits were with
prior police permission. The Chhattisgarh police also reportedly relied on certain
electronic documents to establish a link between Sen and Naxalites. These
documents, images and magazine covers were found from Sen’s residence where
according to him, he was researching on the Naxal Behaviourism. The Judicial
Authorities in 2010 imprisioned Binayak Sen for possession of Naxal literature,
and on a substantive ground that he was involved with Naxalites in/and against
the ruling government of the state. After spending several months in confinement,
he was granted bail by the Supreme Court. No specific reasoning was given for
the order, but a landmark statement by Justice Sinha, still resonates in the minds
of debaters of Sedition Law, where he said that “merely possessing books on
Gandhi won’t make you a Gandhian. Similarly, mere possession of Naxal
Literature won’t make you a Naxalite.” This statement was fair enough to set
another precedent in decoding and deciding the curious cases of Sedition in our
country.

9
 CHAPTER III

LANDMARK CASES AND EVENTS OF SEDITION (Modern Era)

1. Kanahiya Kumar Case 7(JNU Sedition Event)

On 9 February 2016, some students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) held a protest
on their campus against the capital punishment meted out to the 2001 Indian Parliament
attack convict Afzal Guru, and Kashmiri separatist Maqbool Bhat. The organizers of the
event were former members of the Democratic Students' Union (DSU). The event was
held despite the University administration withdrawing permission for the event shortly
before it was due to begin, due to protests by members of the student union of ABVP.
The event saw clashes between various student groups. A video was circulated by Indian
news channel Zee news in which a small group of individuals, whom a later investigation
described as outsiders to the University wearing masks, shouted "anti-India" slogans.The
slogans were criticized by many individuals, including political leaders and students of
JNU. Delhi Police arrested JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar on charges of sedition and
criminal conspiracy, under section 124 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to 1860.
Five other students, Umar Khalid, Anirban Bhattacharya, Rama Naga, Anant Prakash and
Ashutosh Kumar, went into hiding after the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, and returned 10
days later. Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya surrendered to the police and were
taken into custody. The other three students did not surrender but said that they were
open to questioning by police when needed.

The arrest and the use of the sedition law were heavily criticized as being a suppression
of political dissent. It was argued that “The law that Kumar was arrested under had been
enacted in 1870, and used by the British Raj to suppress the Indian independence
movement.” University teachers criticised the arrest as being an "excessive police

7
Kanahiya Kumar v. State of NCT, W.P.(CRL) 558/2016 & Crl.M.A. Nos.3237/2016 & 3262/2016.

10
 action". JNU students formed a human chain, demanding that sedition charges against
Kanhaiya Kumar be dropped. Human rights organization Amnesty India said Kumar's
arrest and the charges against him were "uncalled for" and "India's sedition law contrary
to international standards on freedom of expression must be repealed.

Based on the inquiry, the committee meted out varying punishments to a number of
students. Kanhaiya Kumar was fined 10,000 rupees, which Umar Khalid and Anirban
Bhattacharya were rusticated from the university.A number of other students received
fines, rustications, bans from campus, or withdrawals of hostel facilities.The committee
found that the provocative slogans at the 9 February event were raised by a group of
outsiders, wearing masks. The panel criticized the campus security force for failing to
prevent the sloganeering and failing to stop the outsiders from leaving the campus.[3] It
also criticized the organizers of the first event for not "acting with due responsibility."
The panel stated that "This act by outsiders has brought disrepute to the entire JNU
community."

2. Asseem Trivedi Case8 (A Controversial Cartoonist)

Controversial political cartoonist and activist, Aseem Trivedi, best known for his anti-
corruption campaign, Cartoons Against Corruption, was arrested on charges of sedition,
in 2010. The complaint, filed by Amit Katarnayea who is a legal advisor for a Mumbai-

8
Sanskar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, Cri.PIL 3-2015.

11
based NGO, condemns Trivedi’s display of ‘insulting and derogatory’ sketches, that
depicted the Parliament as a commode and the National Emblem in a negative manner
having replaced the lions with rabid wolves, during an Anna Hazare protest against
corruption, as well as posting them on social networking sites.

As reported by India Today, members of India Against Corruption (IAC) claimed that the
cases were foisted on Trivedi by the government, as the government was angry with their
anti-corruption crusade. Mayank Gandhi of the IAC said, “The case has been registered
simply because Aseem had participated in the BKC protest organized by Anna Hazare
and had raised his voice against corruption. So the government is trying to scuttle his
protest in this manner.” Trivedi’s case seriously questioned freedom of speech and
expression in the country we a young man got arrested for lampooning evident corruption
in the country. It’s acceptable that some may find his cartoon offensive and in bad taste,
but sentencing a person to life in prison for such an act is too extreme. The cartoon that
Aseem Trivedi allegedly made a cartoon depicting National Embelm of India with ‘Three
wolves’ instead of ‘Three lions’ and also did show a figure of ‘Bharat Mata’ being raped
by Politician and Beureucat. His sedition charges was dropped and he was granted bail on
personal bond of Rs. 5000, on the basis of an independent petition by a lawyer. Attorney

12
 General Darius Khambatta admitted before the HC court that the sedition charges against
Trivedi were a "bonafide knee jerk reaction" to numerous complaints received by the
police against cartoons drawn by Trivedi. Proper sedition charges were dropped by the
Maharashtra Government on October 12, 2012. It was reiterated by the court that on close
inspection of the case, it does not constitute an offence under the definition of Section
124(a) of the IPC.

3. Shreya Singhal Case9 (Technology and Sedition)

This case is monumental in India’s jurisprudence as its judgement 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 shutdown 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 judgement is the court’s ruling that a person could not be tried
for sedition unless their speech, however “unpopular,” offensive or inappropriate, had an
established connection with any provokation 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,”

In a 52-page judgement, which extensively discussed Indian, English and US

jurisprudence on free speech, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66-A of the

9
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.

13
Information Technology Act, read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act
and the related rules, and affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of the Act.

Speaking for the Court, Justice Nariman mentioned the varied standards that area unit
applicable to judge once restrictions on speech are often deemed affordable, beneath
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Court control that Section 66-A was obscure
and over-broad, and so fell foul of Article 19(1)(a), since the statute wasn't narrowly
tailored to specific instances of speech that it sought-after to curb. significantly, the Court
additionally thought-about the 'chilling effect' on speech caused by obscure and over-
broad statutory language as a principle for hanging down the supply. Further, the Court
control that the 'public order' restriction beneath Article 19(2) of the Constitution
wouldn't apply to cases of 'advocacy', however solely to 'incitement', specifically
incitement that encompasses a proximate reference to public disorder.

Of the challenge on the grounds beneath Article fourteen of the Constitution of Asian
country, the Court control that "we area unit unable to trust counsel for the petitioners
that there's no intelligible difference between the medium of print, broadcast and real live
speech as critical speech on the net. The intelligible difference is evident – the net offers
anyone a platform which needs little or no payment through that to air his views."
whereas the choice of the Supreme Court is of huge significance in protective on-line free
speech against arbitrary restrictions, Section 66A, that was declared unconstitutional, has

14
continued to be used as a retributory live against on-line speech in several cases.

Hence in the modern aspect, Sedition has both been imposed and retracted to be
imposed on the accused. But in the modern era, as the constitutional validities have
an uprising especially in the context of Fundamental Rights, Law of Sedition has
been more contradictory in basic jurisprudence as it clashes with one of the most
pivotal right of Free speech and expression.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIVE ADDRESSALS

1. Significance of infringement (Post Independence v. trendy Era)

In the nineteenth and twentieth century, there occurred many position trials in cases
involving the infringement laws in Bharat that conjointly comprised of many Indian

15
Freedom fighters. within the post-independence era, its record of use since
independence of Bharat points out perennial instances of misuse. it's been used at
random to curb dissent. Its main target are writers, journalist, activists WHO question
government policy and comes, and political dissenters. within the era, it's been
punctually debated by the courts, lawyers and political activists that the liberty of
speech and expression may be a elementary right and conjointly a basic right. It
provides a chance to a private to specific himself, dissent, self-reformation and free
flow of knowledge each transmission and receiving. The restriction on that need to be
constitutionally valid and affordable not arbitrary . Section 124A of IPC desires a
relook within the gift situation. there's got to maintain correct balance between the
infringement laws and freedom of speech and expression.
It includes also been redressed that there's associate imperative got to slim down the
interpretation of the section 124A of IPC and stop its indiscriminate use within the
silly arbitrary manner because the instance of misuse of section 124A has a “chilling
result “on freedom of speech and expression. “Sedition” has been delineated as
infidelity in action. the item of infringement law is to induce discontent and rising,
and fire up opposition to the govt. and produce the administration of justice into
contempt. however its been heavily controversial that there ought to be an in depth
differentiation between ‘dissent’ and ‘disaffection’. These 2 terms ar fully completely
different from one another and dissent doesn't perpetually mean disaffection and vice-
versa.

2. Debates Over Constitutional Validity

Debates relating to the constitutional validity of infringement has command that
Bharat is that the largest democratic country and Dissent is that the escape valve of
the Democracy. So, such Colonial Era law that has become obsolete doesn't hold
sensible in twenty first Century. Indeed, currently conjointly this law is usually
employed by the govt. as machinery to suppress the voice of the folks. And since
infringement may be a cognoscible Offence i.e. (Police don't need Warrant to arrest),
they typically arrest the folks and frame charges on silly grounds. “As per the most

16
 recent report of the NCRB, the amount of infringement cases filed within the past
four years since 2015 stood at 193. However, the trials are completed solely in forty
three cases and out of those the defendant are guilty solely in four cases.”[3] This
points bent on the actual fact that however the govt. and therefore the Police misuse
this law as per their whims and fancies and fail miserably once it involves convict
those defendant of committing the offence. So, it are often inexplicit that this law will
a lot of damage than it will something sensible. currently most of the Country have
command the infringement law as unconstitutional or rather they need omitted this
from their Penal sculpture. Infact, England that begot this provision in Bharat has
conjointly omitted it 10 years back, then there's no correct reason for Bharat to
continue with identical. currently a method we will say that infringement has become
redundant as a result of it's coated in laws just like the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 (section 95), The Seditious conferences Act, 1911 and therefore the Unlawful
(Prevention) Act . it's conjointly been heavily debated by critics of infringement that
it’s a law from Britishers and therefore the same law has been repealed by UK’s
government in 2009, therefore keeping it within the realms of Bharat, that was a
British colony and therefore the law was enacted to forestall rebellions and mass
protests ought to be repealed from our constitution still.

1. International Stance on Sedition

United Kingdom: The sedition law in the United Kingdom was abolished in 2009 as it
was considered to be a relic of an era where freedom of expression was not considered a
right as it is now. Sedition was abolished through the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009,
under Gordon Brown’s Labour government. Three offences were abolished: the offences
of sedition and seditious libel; the offence of defamatory libel; and the offence of obscene
libel. The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Claire
Ward, said at the time of the act’s enactment: “Sedition and seditious and defamatory
libel are arcane offences - from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as
the right it is today”.

17
“Freedom of speech is now seen as the touchstone of democracy, and the ability of
individuals to criticise the state is crucial to maintaining freedom”.

New Zealand: New Zealand abolished Sedition law on October 24, 2007 when they
repealed Crimes Act 1961 after many criticised the law as it hinders freedom of speech
and expression against the state. The Law Commission concluded that the seditious
offences are "too broad and uncertain" and may be abused by certain parties that may use
it to stifle or punish any form of political speech. Prior to abolishing the law, the New
Zealand government even provided five specific reasons for repealing the sedition
provisions of Crimes Act 1961, namely;

18
1) The legal profile of the offence is broad, variable, and uncertain. The
meaning of "sedition" has changed over time.

2) As a matter of policy, the present law invades the democratic value of free
speech for no adequate public reason.

3) Specifically, the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990.

4) The seditious offences can be inappropriately used to impose a form of

political censorship, and they have been used for this purpose.

5) The law is not needed because those elements of it that should be retained
are more appropriately covered by other offences.

Australia: In 2005, the government introduced the Anti Terrorism Bill, which included
more protection for the media and leeway for freedom of expression.
Despite the fact that there is a new law in place of their sedition act, Article 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) basically states that
'everyone has the right to to their opinion, freedom of expression and right to access to
information'.

19
2. Personal Opinion
Sedition in the context of India still a very required law, but with its fair share of
amendments. The law thogh sometimes have been upheld in a righteous manner,
mannier times has been used to curb the voices of dissent as well. Governments have
used to the law to keep the tongues and hands of many artists, journalists and political
activists in check and sometimes in a very negative way indeed. But Sedition act does
have its own perks. If used and amended judicially, Sedition law can be considered as
poignant tool to create proper checks and balances in the society, which is politically
driven and just sometimes forgets about the duties that comes with the fundamental
rights given. No doubt Sedition in its today’s definition does mercilessly cut and
clashes with the Freedom of Speech and Expression, but while it does that, it
somewhere keeps a reasonable notion to speak wisely in concurrence to moral deceny
and public order.

20
3. Suggested Amendments in Sedition Law
• Reduction in Punishment
The punishment for a person convicted of sedition should be made more reasonable,
in accordance with the changing times. Today, with greater freedom of speech and
expression and stronger views on the government amongst the masses, the crime of
sedition in most cases does not warrant imprisonment up to a life sentence or other
such harsh punishments. Also, it is always possible in cases of sedition that the
person’s words were taken out of context or that they were said in the heat of the
moment. Unless the seditious actions have actually brought concrete damage to
another, they should be dealt with more rationally.

• Disaffection v. Dissent
There should be a clear distinction between what is ‘dissent’ and what is
‘disaffection’ in deciding the cases of Sedition. Where considering the moral compass
of our society, ‘Disaffection’ is more likely to bring contempt and hatred among the
masses and should be dealt accordingly. Sedition is, no doubt, a controversial
concept; it must be held in a delicate balance with our ‘Right to Freedom of Speech
and Expression’. While no citizen should be allowed to spread unnecessary hatred
among the masses and incite violence against the Government (especially in a country
founded on the principles of non-violence) every citizen should also possess the
freedom to express their views on the Government. The interpretation laid down by
the Indian courts and the actual implementation of this law sometimes differ, which
has led to people labeling the applied law as “draconian”. In an era where the citizens
are increasingly aware of their rights and liberties and have a growing sense of duty
and responsibility in this democratic system, perhaps it is the perfect time to consider
reform in this law.

-END OF THE PROJECT-

21
Submitted By

Yash Bhatnagar

Enrollment Number: 200101157

(FYBA.LL.B, Section B)

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Submitted to:

Prof (Dr.) C. M. Jariwala (Professor, Basics of Legislation and Dean of Academics)

Dr. Shashank Shekhar (Assist. Professor, Basics of Legislation and Law)

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

22