Raghavgrover1907@gmail.

com Raghav Grover +91-8368942216

“Sedition laws in India: Historical Development and Conceptual Aspects”

Cambridge dictionary defines Sedition as “a language or behaviour intended to persuade

other people to oppose their government and change it, sometimes by using violence”
Sedition Law is a draconic, archaic legislation which saw its inception in India during the
British colonial era – which was a tool at their disposal to quell or suppress any degree of
opposition or dissent of the British policies, most notably the arrests of Mahatma Gandhi
and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were done on grounds of sedition. The drafters of the Indian
constitution, by the efforts of K.M. Munshi and Bhupinder Singh Mann, were cautious
enough to preclude sedition from it. However, this law made a re-appearance in the Indian
constitution via the first constitutional amendment and has since remained. Originally,
Section 124A, found its way into the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in 1898, made sedition a
criminal offence. Section 124A specifies words such as “hatred”, “contempt”, “disaffection”,
“disloyalty” and “enmity” or inciting the said emotions towards the government which are a
consequence of any act undertaken or words, spoken or written, or any expression by a
person or a group of persons. However, the section clearly states that mere criticism of
government policies or administration methodologies with an intent to improve the
situation and not with an intent to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection are beyond the
purview of this section. With the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (C.A.A), 2019
coming into force, an approximately 3000 people were incarcerated on the grounds of
sedition. The three controversial farm law bills saw the number of people being arrested
increase by 10%. Thus, this has revived the debate around the highly contentious article
124A.
In Ram Nandan vs State of U.P. (1958), the validity of Section 124A was challenged on
grounds of it being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution. A similar
contention was raised in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962). The
apex court ruled that law can only be applied in rare cases of violence and where the
security and sovereignty of the state is threatened. In 1995, the Supreme Court held in
Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab that mere raising of slogans was beyond the scope
of Section 124A unless violence is a direct and a foreseeable result of the same. Similar ratio
decidendi has been held by the apex court in the cases of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State of
Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Common Cause vs Union of India (2018).
In recent times, since the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has come into power at the
centre, the debate around sedition has picked up with more enthusiasm. According to a
study by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 326 cases of sedition were filed
between 2014-19. Although the conviction rate in sedition cases is one of the lowest (3%) –
the trend across the years is pernicious. The data by NCRB, for instance, shows that sedition
cases have risen from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019 – a whopping 163% rise. Sedition has been
used as a tool to harass any individual(s) or group(s) who are critical of the government,
journalists in particular. For example, a case of sedition was slapped on NDTV journalist,
Raghavgrover1907@gmail.com Raghav Grover +91-8368942216

Vinod Dua – who, in his YouTube show had expressed critical comments about PM Narendra
Modi and the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and their overall abysmal management of the Covid-
19 crisis. However, the apex court dismissed the case as the comments merely expressed
disapproval and did not intend to incite violence or unrest. Similarly, in State vs Disha A.
Ravi, more popularly known as the Greta Thunberg toolkit case, Disha Ravi and two other
journalists were incarcerated on a non-bailable offence for allegedly colluding with a pro-
khalistani organisation to defame India on a global scale. The toolkit posted by teenage
climate activist; Greta Thunberg was used as sufficient evidence to support such an action
against the three journalists. The court ordered for the accused to be released on bail on a
bond of Rs. One Lakh with a direction to attend all court proceedings. Similarly, for their
posts and cartoons on social media – two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and
Kanhaiya Lal Shukla were charged with sedition. Similarly, Patricia Mukhim was charged
with a case of sedition by Headman and Secretary of Dorbar Shnong, Shillong for her post on
Facebook. Zakir Hussain and Nissar Ahmed Khan were charged with sedition charges on
account of demeaning conversation criticizing the Indian armed forces. These are just few
instances where the government has used sedition as a tool to demean, harass and torture
any elements who have been critical of the government and its policies. In the case of public
interest litigation filed against former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Farooq
Abdullah – Justice Chandrachud reiterated the stance of the court that any views expressed
which are critical and dissent of the government’s policy without any intent to cause any
unrest or violence cannot be termed as seditious. Sedition is an archaic law, which has long
over-run its course. It has been used in a domineering fashion – to suppress and stifle any
dissent and to present a very rosy picture of the government.
In conclusion, sedition laws and misuse of Section 124A by authorities and governments sets
a very dangerous precedent and over the last century or so, since the British colonial era,
have been used to stifle any dissent and opposition. It seeks to eliminate all dissent and
encourages totalitarianism. Freedom of expression and the right to free speech are the
cornerstone of a healthy living democracy and sign of a growing nation. Thus, this draconian
law which gets its place in Section 124A of the IPC – needs to be reviewed. The Legislature
and judiciary should work in cahoots to ensure that this archaic primordial law witnesses its
demise and the right of freedom, expression and personal liberty of all citizens is upheld.
Rather than stifling any dissent or criticism, the governments should focus on using such
criticism to get feedback to improve the policies, framework, planning process and overall
administration of the nation. Stifling any dissent or criticism would make such dissenting
individuals’ resolve even further. A healthy democracy is one which does not shy away from
any criticism, rather uses the same to improve and ameliorate the overall health of the
nation for the benefit of all

Written by: Raghav Grover