Sedition and the social media and understanding the challenges in

the digital age

Dr. Brahm Dev Pandey & Devesh Shukla

Abstract
The first sign of a democratic country is considered that the people of that country having the
power to speak freely without fear or compression, but any such law which prevails the
liberty of is considered to be arbitrary by the constitution, Similarly, such a provision in the
Indian Penal Code is Sedition, which can be understood as an expression or speech which
result in mutiny against the government of the state. Section 124A is a relic of colonial
legacy, which is not only incompatible in a democratic country but also imposes limitations
over the exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Since the
constitutional rights enable and empower a person to question and criticize the government
which is considered to be the first liberty of an individual in a democratic state. Sedition is
considered to be a draconian provision of the Indian Penal Code, the unambiguous
interpretations of the terms mentioned in the sedition have brought up a lot of controversial
issues in the courts.

In this research paper, we primarily focus on interpreted of sedition and the relation between
the Sedition and Freedom of Speech and Expression as well as how Sedition is being misused
in the digital era of Internet Communication.

Keywords: Sedition, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Internet, Reasonable Restriction.

Introduction
Sedition, the term originates from the Latin word ‘seditio’ which can be understood as “riot”
in simplest understanding1, and it is defined as ‘an act of incitement or resistance to or
insurrection against lawful authority’. Sedition has been defined under Section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Any person who gets coupled in this act is considered to be
Seditionist. The basic idea behind sedition is interlinked to public disorder, hampering the
peace and harmony of the society. The speaker tends to deliver such a speech which
comprises of an idea, questions and different aspect, which tends to create chaos amongst the
people of society, these expressions may consist of words, gesture or visible representation
which incite towards the government, this incitation when turned into rebellion or armed
rebellion then it is termed

1 Merriam Webster, Sedition,

https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/sedition
as sedition. Before we go in depths it is pertinent to know about the phrase ‘libel’. The term
Libel is defined a piece of writing that contains bad or false things about a person,2 which can
be understood as when a person publish false statement or accusation in any form of an
article, blog, or content in the newspaper, pamphlets, etc.3 or with the mala-fide intention of
besmirching a person’s Honor. Therefore when such derogatory accusations, allegations, or
statements are made against the government then the outcome of such a statement could
amount to seditious libel.
Sedition is considered to be an expression which results in creating hatred or contempt or
disaffection toward the government established by law, but simultaneously ‘expressions’ are
protected by the Constitution of India.4 Part III of the Constitution guarantees fundamental
rights to the citizens of India, under which Article 19(1)5 protects and empowers the people of
the country with the freedom of speech and expression. By virtue of this article one can
express, impart and transfer information, thoughts, ideas etc. freely without any hesitations.
We know that expressions could be mala-fide as well as Bona-fide. Expression can curb
public disorder as well as work as oil in fire, and in order to protect the public order and
security of nation, Some Reasonable Restriction are imposed over this Article. Expression,
when tend to excite or attempts to excite or creates disaffection, or incite contempt or Hatred
toward the government then it is termed as Sedition.6 The expressions made or said are hard
to interpret since every expression relating to the government can be considered to be
exciting or attempt to create disaffection. When we criticize or raise any question over the
action or decision of the government, we inevitably give rise to disaffection inside people's
conscience. The word disaffection is unambiguous, when related to the diversity of people's
conscience. What is a critique or questioning as per a person’s conscience, can also be
interpreted as “causing disaffection or an act of rebellion” to another's conscience. These
ambiguous words have led to a lot of controversy in the present era.

As per NCRB7 there has been an upsurge in the cases of sedition, it is pertinent to know that
the majority of these cases are related to expression in public, and digital forms i.e. the
expression are made over the internet in the digital forms over social networking sites. The
internet provides us with the Social Media Platforms (Hereinafter SMP) which enables us
with unrestricted freedom of expression, although these SMP do adhere to the statutes laid
down by the government, but due to its diverse nature the implications the occurrence of
these free expression cannot be curtailed or evaded. Access to the internet is considered to be
Fundamental right under Article 21. 8of the Constitution, and in today’s era of modernity and
advancement every person has an account over SMP which leads to gigantic complication of
free expression.

2 Libel, Cambridge Dictionary, (visited on 07th July 12:24AM),

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/libel
3 Id.
4 Constitution of India, 1950.
5 Constitution of India, art. 19, § 1
6 Sedition, Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
7 National Crime Record Bureau, (Visited on 4th May 20, 07:55PM), ncrb.gov.in 11
Constitution of India, art. 21.
8 Indian Penal Code, Sec 124A, (1860)
These expressions when tend to give rise to the armed rebellion or disaffection towards the
government, then they are charged for sedition. It is pertinent to know that this law has been
misused based on the interpretation of the words. Hence we need to understand the sedition in
order to tackle this issue.

Interpretation of Sedition
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence Sedition as “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 in India.”9 This classifies it as a criminal offence
and a crime against the state. Punishment for this offence is Cognizable, Non- Bailable and is
considered as an offence which cannot be compounded because of its grave nature, that is,
non-Compoundable. Such cases can be tried by the court of sessions.10

When the IPC came into existence in the year of 1860, sedition was not a provision in it.
Later it was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code, XXVIII Amendment of 1870 by Lord
Thomas Babington Macaulay11 and continued without any alteration till 1898. Likewise,
before the Amendment Act, Section 124A only had one explanation, it also got bifurcated into
three explanations through this amendment.12 This happened at the time when Wahhabi
Movement13 had initiated, there was a sudden upsurge in Revolt with the contention to
dethrone the Britishers and re-treat them to their country. Considering the situation of
outbreak of the riots, protests and increased rebellion nature of the citizens, two precautionary
laws were supplemented to Section 124A by the British Indian Government after the
enactment of sedition, these acts were the Dramatic Performances Act, 1876 with the
objective of precluding performances which were seditious, disparaging or scurrilous in
description. The two offence were made punishable soon after they got codified, but this
enactment was made to thwart orchestration which was likely to upsurge such an offence and
lead to rupturing the peace. Eventually this act got repealed by the Repeal and Amending
(Second) Act, 2017.14 The other act was the Vernacular Press Act, 1878 which focused to
impose restriction and bring the publication under government law and order, for repressing
the seditious publication which

9 Indian Penal Code, Sec 124A, (1860)

10 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Schedule I
11 Siyuan Chen, Codification, Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code, Institute Knowledge at Singapore
Management University, (Visited on 4th May 20, 08:15PM),
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3923&context=sol_research
12 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, January -March 1966, https://www.jstor.org/journal/jindilawinst
13 Shodhganga, Wahhabi Movement of 1863-65,
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39058/8/08_experimental.pdf
14 Repeal and Amending (Second) Act, 2017,
http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2018/181639.pdf
instigated hatred in the public intellect.15 Due to the nature of this act, a lot of controversies
occurred hence the act got abrogated in the year of 1881.

Sedition started its journey in courts Pre-Independence with the first case of Queen-Emperor
vs J C Bose16. Bose was the editor of the newspaper named ‘Bangobasi’. In his newspaper he
published an article criticizing the Age of Consent Bill17. “The intention of the articles in
referring to famines and high prices and charging the Government with persecuting the
Hindu religion is to make the people discontented and dissatisfied”.21 His words in the article
were against the government stating that this act was a threat to religion and was forcefully
imposed on the people. He was not convicted for sedition, since he offered an apology letter
and the case was dropped. Apart from it many eminent Independence Activists were also
charged for the offence of sedition amidst that list, some of them were Mahatma Gandhi, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak etc. Tilak was charged with sedition three times during the British
government in 1897,18 190919 and 191620. In 1897, he was charged with Sedition because of
the speeches he delivered which infuriated the people and led to the Killing of two British
officers and for this offence he was imprisoned for 18 months. In 1909, two revolutionaries
threw bombs on the carriage as they wanted to kill the Chief Presidency Magistrate Douglas
Kingford. Tilak defended these youths by publishing articles “The Country Misfortune” and
“The remedies are not lasting” in Newspaper named ‘kesari’ for which the government
charged him with sedition and for the same he was imprisoned for six years. Finally in 1916
he was charged for the speeches delivered at various events, again he was imprisoned for six
years. Another Independence Activist to face Sedition was Mahatma Gandhi, he was jailed
for six years for publishing three ‘politically sensitive’ articles in his weekly journal ‘Young
India’. There are numerous eminent cases of sedition, which have led to various decisions
and opinions regarding sedition. In the Ram Nanda Case 25 Allahabad High Court held that
Section 124A is unconstitutional as it infringes Fundamental Right under Article 19

15 Vernacular press act, 1880, (Visited on 7th Jul, 1:14AM), https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vernacular-Press-

Act
16 Queen-Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors., 1891
17 Shodhganga, Age of Consent in Marriage, P. 21, (Visited on 4 th May 20, 08:32PM), was a legislation enacted
by the British India, which raised the age of consent for sexual intercourse for all the girls, unmarried or
married, from 10 to 12 in all its jurisdiction. It was violation subject to criminal prosecution of rape .,
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/191982/4/6%20age%20of%20consent%20in%20marraige.pd
f 21 Ibid.
18 Queen Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1897
19 Queen Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1909
20 Queen Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1916 25
Ram Nandan v State of UP, 1958 AIR (ALL) 1
‘Freedom of speech and Expression’. The judgement of Ram-Nanda Case21 was reversed in
Kedarnath Singh22 the court observed that the section 124A is constitutional and also that if
the freedom of speech and expression exceeds its limit then it would no longer be considered
as a right but would come under the purview of sedition, i.e. if the speech tends to incite the
feeling of enmity towards the government then it would be considered in the ambit of
sedition.
In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs Emperor23, the court ruled out that the offence of “sedition is
the incitement to violence or the tendency or the effect of bringing into hatred or contempt or
creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the state. While in the landmark judgment of
Kedarnath29 where the petitioner was charged with sedition on the basis of the speech
delivered by him criticizing the government. The court ruled that citizens can criticize the
government as long as they do not instigate the people to revolt against the government.30
After this case, it was mandatory for the accused to create or cause disaffection toward the
government which leads to rebellion of people against the government for sedition. The court
considers this as an essential part of the facts and circumstances of the case before passing
down the judgment.31 Balwant Singh & Anr vs State of Punjab24, where the accused raised the
slogan of “khalistan zindabad” immediately after assassination of the Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi. The court ruled that merely shouting slogan or raising slogan does not affect the
public nor bring dissatisfaction, and Section 124A would not be applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the present case since it did not lead to any violence.25 In 2015 judgement of
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India26 the Supreme Court once again held that one had to
differentiate between “advocacy” and “incitement”, then only incitement would be
punishable. Justice Rohinton Nariman clearly made out a red mark over the danger of over
expansive terms curbing free speech and thought.27 Another eminent case held in the same
year, the case of Arun Jaitley vs State of UP28, in which Arun Jaitley on National Judicial
Commission Act, “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the
government, by way of criticism or comments as long it does not incite people to opt for
violence. The article merely seeks to voice the opinion of the need to strike a balance between
the functioning of the pillar it is surely a call to arms.”
It is pertinent to know that the Sedition and freedom of speech and expression are interwoven.
We need to understand the relation of sedition and the Freedom of Speech and Expression
together. We also need to underline the Relation amongst them as well as the limits of
Freedom of Expression when it turns to Sedition.

21 ibid.
22 Kedarnath vs State of Bihar, 1962.
23 Nihharendu Dutt Majumdar vs Emperor, 1939
29
Supra note at 27. 30 Id at 21 31 Id at 21.
24 Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab, 1955
25 Ibid.
26 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015,
27 Supra note at 27,
28 Arun Jaitley vs State of UP, 2015 37Constitution
of India, Art 19 § 1.
Sedition and Freedom of Expression.
We all are aware about the Freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the
Constitution of India, under Article 19(1) which states ‘protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.”37 The right to freedom of speech and expression ensures that every
citizen of the country has the freedom to express and impart his views and thoughts,
information. One of the exceptions to this particular right, is the individuals who do not have
the citizenship of the country India, i.e. Foreign Nationals.29 The freedom of speech and
expression is exercised to express a person’s thought, idea, information, views etc. by way of
words, spoken or written, gestures, signs, publications like articles, newspapers, pamphlets.30
This Article grants every citizen regardless of their caste, creed, gender, race or community,
the freedom to express their opinion in any matters without any restrictions. It is considered
to be the first liberty of a democratic country. Freedom of speech and expression can be
exercised in any form of communicating methods be it gesture, sign, speech etc.31 This
Freedom can be understood in layman language as every individual of the state has the right
to express his views, impart information as well as share opinions to others according to his
appropriateness be it either verbal, written, or gesture.
Similarly, sedition bars a person from making any such expression which creates disaffection,
incitement people against the Government of India. Therefore the question of arises, that if a
person has fundamental rights conferred in him of free expression then how can he or she be
charged for sedition for exercising his fundamental rights. Therefore, it is certain to state that
the sedition and freedom of expression are interwoven. Sedition on one hand is incomplete
without freedom of expression and on the other hand freedom of speech when crosses certain
limits turns into sedition. Hence, we can conclude that there is fine line gap between the
Freedom of Expression changing to the Sedition. This line of separation is interpretation of
words and understanding.
It is truly acknowledged that any sort of Unlimited or Unrestricted right can lead to arbitrary,
oppressive or tyrannical actions, limitations have also been imposed upon this right, which
are mentioned under Article 19(2)32 which states that the government can make or impose
necessary restrictions at any time as per feasibility. Even Free speech may result in a seditious
statement if any such speech or article starts creating disaffection, hatred, or rebellion against
the government, in the conscience of the reader or the listener. Hence it was compulsory to
impose restrictions over free speech and this was accomplished by the First Constitutional

29 Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others, AIR 1955 SC 367
30 Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 303 US 444 ; see also, Mohd Asif, Freedom of Speech and Expression: A
Study Under the Backdrop of 200th Law commission Report, International Journal of Law, (Visited on 5 th May
20, 10:12AM), http://www.lawjournals.org/download/335/4-3-61-712.pdf
31 Ibid.
32 Constitution of India, art. 19 § 2
Sedition and Freedom of Expression.
We all are aware about the Freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by the
Constitution of India, under Article 19(1) which states ‘protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.”37 The right to freedom of speech and expression ensures that every
citizen of the country has the freedom to express and impart his views and thoughts,
information. One of the exceptions to this particular right, is the individuals who do not have
the citizenship of the country India, i.e. Foreign Nationals.33 The freedom of speech and
expression is exercised to express a person’s thought, idea, information, views etc. by way of
words, spoken or written, gestures, signs, publications like articles, newspapers, pamphlets.34
This Article grants every citizen regardless of their caste, creed, gender, race or community,
the freedom to express their opinion in any matters without any restrictions. It is considered
to be the first liberty of a democratic country. Freedom of speech and expression can be
exercised in any form of communicating methods be it gesture, sign, speech etc.35 This
Freedom can be understood in layman language as every individual of the state has the right
to express his views, impart information as well as share opinions to others according to his
appropriateness be it either verbal, written, or gesture.
Similarly, sedition bars a person from making any such expression which creates disaffection,
incitement people against the Government of India. Therefore the question of arises, that if a
person has fundamental rights conferred in him of free expression then how can he or she be
charged for sedition for exercising his fundamental rights. Therefore, it is certain to state that
the sedition and freedom of expression are interwoven. Sedition on one hand is incomplete
without freedom of expression and on the other hand freedom of speech when crosses certain
limits turns into sedition. Hence, we can conclude that there is fine line gap between the
Freedom of Expression changing to the Sedition. This line of separation is interpretation of
words and understanding.
It is truly acknowledged that any sort of Unlimited or Unrestricted right can lead to arbitrary,
oppressive or tyrannical actions, limitations have also been imposed upon this right, which
are mentioned under Article 19(2)36 which states that the government can make or impose
necessary restrictions at any time as per feasibility. Even Free speech may result in a seditious
statement if any such speech or article starts creating disaffection, hatred, or rebellion against
the government, in the conscience of the reader or the listener. Hence it was compulsory to
impose restrictions over free speech and this was accomplished by the First Constitutional

33 Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others, AIR 1955 SC 367
34 Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 303 US 444 ; see also, Mohd Asif, Freedom of Speech and Expression: A
Study Under the Backdrop of 200th Law commission Report, International Journal of Law, (Visited on 5 th May
20, 10:12AM), http://www.lawjournals.org/download/335/4-3-61-712.pdf
35 Ibid.
36 Constitution of India, art. 19 § 2
Amendment Act37. By virtue of this Amendment certain changes in Article 19(1)(a) Freedom
of Speech and Expression were made to restrict the power conferred under the same for the
people, so that the misuse of this right could be made immobile. Justice Patanjali Shastri
observed in the case of A K Gopalan v State of Madras37 that “Man as a rational being,
desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated
and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals.”
Reasonable Restrictions are a set of limitations set forth by the Government of India, over the
exercise of Article 19(1)(a) and are mentioned under Article 19(2). These Restrictions can be
imposed in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order decency and morality and contempt of
court, defamation and incitement to an offence.”38 The Sixteenth Amendment Act38 added
Article 19(2) to put reasonable restrictions to the right conferred within Article 19(1). Sir
Gwyer in Niharendu Case stated that ‘the public order or reasonable restriction, or
likelihood of public order is the gist of the offence. The act or word complained must be in
order of incitement to disorder, or must be such to satisfy the reasonable restriction’.46

The High Court stated in the Ram-Nanda Case that the peaceful and legitimate criticism may
also get caught in “the mischief of sedition under 124A of Penal Code.”47 It is very hard to
differentiate between the legitimate criticizing and inciting the public. In Sedition the words
like “tries or tries to bring Hatred or Contempt or Excites or attempt to excite disaffection”
have a huge misconception of understanding, these words have dual interpretation. One in the
Bangobasi Case40 Justice Starchey stated that for sedition there can be no offence under this
section until and unless rebellion or armed rebellion is incited or is sought to be incited.
While in the same case Chief Justice Petheram explained the scope of this section by stating
“It is sufficient for the purpose of this section that the words used are calculated to excite
feeling of ill-will against the government and hold it up to the hatred and contempt of the
people and that they were used with the intention to create such feeling”. These two opinions
held diverse differences between the interpretations of Sedition. This confusion was further
cleared out in Kedarnath Case39 when the court upheld that the section of sedition is
constitutionally valid which continues to curb the freedom of speech and expression. The
court also curtailed the provision of sedition, a person will only be held liable under this
offence if his assails an expression that tends to incite people at large hampering the

37 The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Legislative Department, (Visited on 12 th May
1:15PM), http://legislative.gov.in/constitution-first-amendment-act-1951 37 A.K Gopalan vs State of
Madras, AIR 1950 38 Constitution of India, Art. 19 § 2.
38 Sixteenth Amendment Act, 1963, India.Gov.in, (Visited on 12th May 02:55PM),
https://www.india.gov.in/mygovernment/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-
sixteenthamendment-act-1963 46 Supra note at 22. 47 Supra note at 19 40 Supra note at 13.
39 Supra note at 21.
expression that tends to incite people at large hampering the peace and harmony of the society
and turning the people against their government.40

Hence we can arrive at a decision by saying that the relation between Sedition and Freedom
of Speech and Expression relation is intangible and inevitable. But this relation gets more
twisted when we look at the recent cases of sedition. The digital and modern era of the
Internet has unearthed a new set of questions for both Sedition and Freedom of Expression.
The diversity and unrestricted power over the internet has not only created a lot of chaos
amongst the people of society, but raised an inevitable question over sedition too. The sudden
upsurge in Sedition cases has been a product of media. Hence, we need to understand how the
digital era plays a gigantic part in sedition cases.

Internet, Freedom of Expression and Sedition

The most intrinsic impact on society was caused with the evolution of the internet. The
Internet is considered to be mass media, due to its vivid characteristic i.e. possibility of
reaching every corner of the world instantly. The internet provides certain Social Network
Platforms, which enables and entrusts us with the platform for expressing ourselves. Today
almost every Second individual has access to the internet as well as available at one or more
than one Social Network Sites like, Facebook, WordPress, Twitter. Upon these social
platforms one connects with the other people around the globe and impart their expression in
the form of information, idea, and socializing. However at some place speech and expression
over the internet leads to inciting or creating hatred, contempt and disaffection. These inciting
speeches could be against religion, race, gender etc. but when this speech or expression is
regarding the Government, which creates or incite disaffection, hatred or contempt, then
people are charged with sedition. Such expressions are also considered to be seditious even
when made over the internet.

As per the NCRB41 there has been a sudden inflation in the sedition cases being registered.
From 147 cases in 2015, to 178 in 2016 and 160 in 2017, while the conviction rate was 4 in 4
years.42 Around 80% of the cases were filed on the grounds stating “disaffection”.53 The
interpretation of word “disaffection” varies person to person, but the real interpretation of the
unambiguous words remain an inevitable question on this statute.
As the aforementioned statistic depicts, enormous number of cases occur every year. In 2016
around 138 cases were in queue/listed, in which 86 cases were pending and another 35 were
reported that year, out of which only 16 went for trials, and conviction was done for only 1.43

40 Nath Sinh vs Bihar, Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University, (Visited on 18th June, 1:53 AM),
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/nath-singh-v-bihar/
41 National Crime Record Bureau
42 NCRB, Statistics, (Visited on 18th Jun, 20 1:55AM), datagov.in 53
Supra note 67.
43 Pooja Dantewadia, Sediton Cases in India: What Data Says, Live Mint, (Visited on 28 th June 1:02AM),
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sedition-cases-in-india-what-data-says-11582557299440.html
Similarly in 2017, 151 cases were present, reported in that year 51 cases, and only 27 were
sent for trials and 1 got convicted.44 And this scenario continues to exist. People are charged
with this section to restrict their speech and expression, while the case proceedings and
conviction are lengthy procedure and justice is never prevailed.
There has been many instances where the people have been charged with sedition, starting
with Arundati Roy45 in 2010 where he was charged for sedition based on the speech given by
Roy in a seminar “Azadi- War only” in 2010. Similarly in 2012, Akbaruddin Owaisi was
charged with sedition for his speech he delivered in December.46 Binayak Sen was charged
with sedition for supporting Naxalite, when the proceedings started no evidence could be
confronted.47 In 2014 Hardik Pandey and Kanhaiya Kumar were slammed with sedition
charges and this issue continued till 2020, when the court finally gave direction to charge
Kanhaiya Kumar with sedition.48 In 2019, sedition was charged on 49 people who wrote to
Prime Minister of India, regarding increased mob lynching cases, and although they were
eminent people of the society eg. director, writer, activist.60 Even in recent case of Zafarul
Islam Khan, who happens to be Delhi Minority Chief, has been charged with sedition based
on the post made by him on social media, to be provocative and cause disharmony to the
society.49In Coimbatore, Tamilar Katchi Chief Seeman was charged with sedition, based on
his speech made to the CAA protestor questioning “The Prime Minister, Home Minister and
others to procure Citizenry proof to the public”.50 In all the above cited cases, there is a
common thing, which has laid down whole controversy i.e. The Internet and Social Media. It
is pertinent to know that in the Pre-Independence or the Post-Independence Era, the internet
was not present, the sole medium of communication and translocation of information was
dependent of hard format i.e. Newspapers, Radio, Pamphlets etc. People had freedom of
expression but the medium of communication always played a pre-censorship part. If any
such derogatory or inflammatory publications against the government was tried to publish,
the editor or the owner of such press, radio etc., refrained due the punishment or
acknowledgement of such content to be seditious.

44 Ibid.
45 Top 8 High Profile Sedition Cases in the History of Independent India, India TV, (Visited on 6th June 20,
1:04AM), Top 8 high-profile sedition cases in the history of Independent India
46 ibid
47 Id at 71
48 Id at 16; Will Fight Politically, legally Sedition case against Kanhaiya Kumar: CPI, The Economic Times,
(Visited on 6th June 20, 1:06AM), Will fight politically, legally sedition case against Kanhaiya Kumar: CPI, 60
FIR Against 49 Celebrities on sedition Charges, Hindustan Times, (Visited on 18 th June, 20 1:57AM), FIR
against
49 celebrities on sedition charges - india news
49 Sedition Case: Delhi Minorities Commission Chief Submits Laptop to Police ‘Under Duress’, Times Express
News, (Visited on 18th Juner, 20 1:59AM), Sedition case: Delhi Minorities Commission chief submits laptop to
police ‘under duress’
50 Tamil Nadu: NTK Chief Booked for Sedition, Time of India, (Visited on 18th June 20, 2:01AM), Tamil
Nadu: NTK chief booked for sedition | Coimbatore News 63 Supra note at 21.
Similarly in the recent case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India,63 where two girls were
booked under sedition (124A) and Section 66A of the IT Act, for posting comments on social
networking site Facebook soon after the death of Bal Thackeray for spreading hatred and
creating disaffection towards the government. Similarly, in Shri Shashidhar vs State of
Karnataka51 the petitioners were booked under sedition for conspiracy to instigate police
force to bring down the government. The accused made such speech over the electronic social
media, like Facebook and WhatsApp etc. to create hatred and excite disaffection. Another
instance of the similar situation was seen in recent case of Ibrahim Ali vs State of UP52 The
accused morphed the picture of CM, added some communal hatred message and broadcasted
it on social media, which led to spreading and creating hatred against the government for a
particular community. Another Similar case of Kamal Shukla, the editor of Bhumkal
Samachar newspaper, Chandigarh, was charged with the offence of Sedition, for sharing the
cartoon on Facebook.53

51 Sri Shashidhar vs State of Karnataka, 2016.

52 Ibrahim singh vs state of UP, 2020
53 Shukla Kamal, Indian Editor Charged with sedition for Sharing Cartoon on Facbook, Reporters Without
Border, (Visited on 18th May 12:55AM),
In the 21st century of our democratic country, every case related to sedition has a basic

defence that the act or speech was done in the boundation of “Article 19(1)(a)[7]” of the

Indian Constitution which specifically states “the freedom of speech and expression”. These

people do not understand the constitutionalism of our country. They present only those things

which they want to present. They are not aware of the fact that the “Article 19(2)”[8] of the

Indian Constitution which specifically states that “a reasonable restriction may be imposed by

the Government if they occur to do an act or speech which harms the state and authority. If

something occurs to be anti-national then they can’t use the power of Article 19(1)(a). It will

be totally considered sedition not freedom of speech.

Sedition: Disloyalty In Action

“Sedition” has been described as disloyalty in action. The object of sedition law is to induce

discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government and bring the

administration of justice into contempt. Sedition is a crime against the society as it involves

all those practices that result in conduct disturbance in the state or to lead to civil war which

contempt the sovereign and promotes public disorder.

Digital Media: Platform to express sedition

The most intrinsic impact on society was caused with the evolution of the internet. The

Internet is considered to be mass media, due to its vivid characteristic i.e. possibility of

reaching every corner of the world instantly. The internet provides certain Social Network

Platforms, which enables and entrusts us with the platform for expressing ourselves. Today

almost every Second individual has access to the internet as well as available at one or more

than one Social Network Sites like, Facebook, WordPress, Twitter. Upon these social

platforms one connects with the other people around the globe and impart their expression in

the form of information, ideas, and socializing.

However at some place speech and expression over the internet leads to inciting or creating

hatred, contempt and disaffection. These inciting speeches could be against religion, race,

gender etc. but when this speech or expression is regarding the Government, which creates or

incite disaffection, hatred or contempt, then people are charged with sedition. Such

expressions are also considered to be seditious even when made over the internet.

For example, In October 2016, a Facebook user was booked for sedition for posting

derogatory remarks against the Haryana government, the BJP and the RSS. In August 2016,

the police arrested a Kashmiri engineer on the grounds of sedition, for ‘liking’ and posting a

series of Facebook posts which called for India to withdraw from Kashmir. In December last

year, the police charged a Malayali writer and theatre artiste with sedition for allegedly

insulting the National Anthem via excerpts from his book that were posted on Facebook. In

2012, free speech activist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for posting caricatures on Facebook

which mocked Parliament. One of the charges pressed against him was sedition. In this

scenario, people deliberately choose to act offensive against the Government in power by

using Article 19(1)(a) as their weapon for expression, ultimately which is unlawful.

Should Sedition law be scrapped ?

The law of Sedition is very tricky. It can be used in favour or against the favour. There is a

fine line between criticism and anti-nationalism. In India, criticism is at its peak, people use

Article 19(1)(a) as a boundation to criticise the state. But, they forget to understand the fine

line between criticism and anti-nationalism. They are at the urge to express themselves so

much, that they cross the line and they violate the law. Same goes with the Government, they

also need to understand the difference between criticism and anti-nationalism. The

Government needs to review their actions. Everything done by them is not Sedition. It’s very

obvious that the people cannot use Article 19(1)(a) as a weapon against the Government in

power and the Government cannot use Sedition as a weapon against the people of the country.
Case laws related to constitutional history of Sedition Law

Tara Singh v State of Punjab[9]

Section 124A was struck down as unconstitutional being contrary to Freedom of Speech and

Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1).

Indra Das v State of Assam[10]

The Supreme Court reiterated that all laws, including Section 124A, have to be “read in a

manner so as to make them in conformity with the Fundamental Rights”.

Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam[11]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the speeches which amount to “incitement to imminent

action “can only be criminalized.

ShreyaSinghalvUnionofIndia[12]

The Supreme Court clearly drew distinction between “Advocacy” and “incitement”, in which

only incitement can be punished.

Acts of sedition can only be imposed when a person tends to create “disaffection” towards

the Government which may lead to rebellion. Sedition and Freedom of expression are

completely interwoven and inseparable, the fine gap is the interpretation of words by the

reader. Internet and Social Media plays a major role in any situation as well as it is a coin

with two folds. The one which enables and empowers millions of possibilities, while others

misuse the same benefits. It depends on the individuals which aspect of the internet one uses.

The exercise of these powers are up to individuals, the statements published or broadcasted

over the internet could create mutiny even rebellious acts of violence. Therefore we can

interpret that the internet does play a significant part as well as performs as a medium for

seditious publication. One cannot curtail the expression over the internet nor can it be

prohibited since it is a part of fundamental right, easily accessible. But we cannot deny the
fact that the misuse of the Internet has led many innocent people to be charged for sedition.

Sedition charges can be imposed even if the speech is made in digital form upon the internet.

The only challenge the statute faces is with regard to anonymity over the Digital World.

Altogether Sedition, Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Internet is a lethal

combination for a democratic country, which cannot be curtailed.

 In the name of Fake News
Undoubtedly, fake news is one of the most pernicious evils of social media. Many advantages
of social media get overshadowed by this single disadvantage and make us question the
limitlessness of the freedom that the digital space provides us. A well-recognized legal
principle that one may exercise one’s right to freedom but not at the cost of violating the
rights of others might be an inspiration behind these new rules to establish a system that
could filter out the fake news. However, at a closer look, the government appears to have
devised a way to silence not just its critics but also any commoner who faces any sort of
exploitation from the hands of government authorities or politicians.

The government boasts of proposing a self-regulatory mechanism for the regulation of digital
content but two key provisions (rule 12(3) and rule 14(2)) in this mechanism tilt the balance
in favour of government oversight:

1. registration of the self-regulatory body is subject to Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting (“MIB)’s satisfaction (rule 12(3)); and
2. the interdepartmental committee at level three may hear complaints referred to it by
the MIB, thus skipping the first two levels of self-regulation (rule 14(2)(b)). These
new rules regulate the formerly ungoverned world of digital news media but without
any mandate from the parent legislation to do so. This is an apparent excessive
assumption of powers by the executive without taking the pains of bringing an
amendment in the
Information Technology Act, 2000. Moreover, this Part has been applied with a broad sweep
bringing all “the publishers of news and current affairs content” within its scope. Since ‘news
and current affairs content’ has been defined as “newly received or noteworthy content,
including analysis, especially about recent events primarily of socio-political, economic or
cultural nature, made available over the internet or computer networks” [Rule 2(m)], the rules
will arguably seek to regulate a large number of internet users that engage in producing
similar content on a very small scale e.g., small blog sites. A criticism anywhere would get
difficult.

The MIB would just have to slip a complaint into the mailbox of the Interdepartmental
committee and your fate could be decided without even availing you with an opportunity of
being heard. This would prevent people from raising their voices against any wrong
committed by the government authorities, or to report any instance of misgovernance which
otherwise were one of the biggest reliefs that the digital space provided us

Dislike and Delete

Any content that may not suit the ideology of the government can be ordered to be removed
or blocked at its sweet will. Rule 16 empowers the Secretary of Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, to examine
the relevant content and consider whether it is within the grounds referred to in sub-section
(1) of section 69A of the Act. Section 69A gives the following grounds for blocking the
content – in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

Similarly, Rule 3(1)(d) has empowered it to force any social media platform that it shall
remove or disable access to any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for
the time being in force in relation to the:

1. interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India;

2. security of the State;
3. friendly relations with foreign States;
4. public order;
5. decency or morality;
6. in relation to contempt of court;
7. defamation;
8. incitement to an offence relating to the above, or
9. any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being
in force. In the past few years, the government has issued many arbitrary orders in the
name of maintaining “public order” e.g., internet suspension. India leads the global
tally in suspension of internet services over the past decade whether during the CAA
protests or Delhi riots and recently during the Farmers’ protests due to which many
children couldn’t even attend their online classes, a breach of their right to education.

The longest instance of high-speed internet being banned by an elected government, for 552
days, was in Jammu and Kashmir after August 4th, 2019 for fully to be restored only on
February 5th, 2021. Such long delay even after the Supreme Court had upheld the right of
internet as a fundamental right under the Constitution in its judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v.
Union of India in January, 2020. The recent history showcases how arbitrarily these grounds
can be used for silencing the dissent.

The rules designate social media platforms with minimum 50 lakh registered users as
‘significant social media intermediaries’ which are subject to maximum compliances. The
social media giants like Facebook and Twitter automatically fall under this category. But the
government has retained the power to put any social media platform, big or small, into this
category given that it poses a “material risk” to the sovereignty or integrity of India. Again, it
has not been made clear what would actually amount to material risk, for a small social media
company, which is mostly a startup, to be pulled into this category. The government, on one
hand, wants to make the Indian environment conducive to businesses and startups and on the
other hand it turns that environment into one of fear and skepticism by putting them under the
burden of such heavy compliances.
 The Eye of Providence
The messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal have to trace the first originator of any
information for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or
punishment of an offence related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or of incitement to an offence
relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse
material, punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years. This is one of
the strongest and the most manipulative tools in government’s kit to clamp down on its
dissenters.

The originator may not have the knowledge about the extent to which his/her message would
have gone viral. It might be that he/she made that text without any intention or even
apprehension of causing any harm to the sovereignty or integrity of India or inspiring
violence to disturb public order, yet he/she might be put behind the bars on the ground of that
text without any bail for a long time. The precedents are endless from Safoora Zargar to Dr.
Kafeel to Disha Ravi and many others who became victims of State’s prowess for just
criticizing the policies and actions of the government.

The breach of privacy is writ large on the face of this provision. The government failed to
maintain a fine balance between the right to privacy of an individual and the public interest.
The platform would be required to break the end-to-end encryption protocol to provide this
data to the government. Further, in the absence of a data protection law, any attempts to
weaken encryption through backdoors or key escrow systems would undermine the privacy
and security of all users because these vulnerabilities could be exploited by criminals as well.

The clauses (g) and (h) of Rule 3(1) allows social media platforms to retain any deleted
information of the user for the period of 180 days and upon receiving any order from the
government in this regard, it must provide such information to the government. The purposes
for collecting such information are the verification of identity, or for the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution, of offences under any law for the time being in force,
or for cyber security incidents. The government’s earlier formidable stance of being
concerned about the data storage by these tech giants appears to have lost its ground in front
of the government’s desire to suppress the voice of dissent.

Whether this “Clean Indian Digital Space” mission would turn out to be biased against the
opposition still needs to be seen after these rules come into enforcement. The fearless freedom of
expression is the most valuable amongst the advantages provided by the free space of the digital
world, one that nourishes a liberal democracy. The government’s industrious effort to liberate the
netizens of their freedom would be a self-destructive step for India in the long run. A competition
with China in this regard would destroy the foundations of democracy in India. The Freedom
House Report recently demoted India to the category of “partly free” countries, citing sedition
charges against dissenters as one of the reasons for such demotion.

It is high time for the third organ of the State to step in for the first two who seem to have been
infected with the virus of absolutism. The Supreme Court has, though, called these rules as
toothless hinting on the lack of the enforcement mechanism therein, we still have hope that with a
new Chief Justice coming in, we could see some changes in the attitude of the highest court
towards these rules at least after seeing how they come into play in coming months. One still
needs to see how these rules are implemented on the ground but India’s experience with the
laws that restrict free speech has never been good in the past unless and until the judiciary comes
to save the day.
Social media posts to texts, why all parties love the sedition law

An analysis by The Indian Express of 14 key sedition cases lodged over the past year show
that governments across the country, in states ruled by both BJP and Congress, have wielded
the charge seemingly at the drop of a hat against a sweeping range of alleged offences.
FROM AN editorial linked to a government hoarding to remarks against the Prime Minister
in a pre-poll speech, from a video clip with disputed audio to a message on a housing society
WhatsApp group — all of these have been booked for sedition under the draconian IPC
section 124A for offences punishable with imprisonment upto three years and a fine, or
imprisonment for life and a fine.
An analysis by The Indian Express of 14 key sedition cases lodged over the past year show
that governments across the country, in states ruled by both BJP and Congress, have wielded
the charge seemingly at the drop of a hat against a sweeping range of alleged offences. Of the
14 sedition cases, BJP-ruled UP topped the chart with four, including one against former UP
Governor Aziz Qureshi for alleged remarks about the government. Two of the other cases
were filed against Opposition candidates in the run-up to the state elections. Next in line is
Congress-ruled Chhattisgarh with two cases, including one against a former IG of police over
“inflammatory pieces of writing” against the government.
The latest on the list is also the most high-profile — that of MLA-MP couple Ravi and
Navneet Rana for threatening to chant the Hanuman Chalisa outside Maharashtra Chief
Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s residence in Mumbai last month.
The other key cases are equally striking, both for range and nature: from pro-Pakistan slogans
to a social media post against law enforcement, from remarks against UP Chief Minister Yogi
Adityanath to a threat to attack the state with a cannon over the farmers’ protests — and a
new Tamil flag

Karnataka has more sedition cases based on social media

posts than any state, most are illegal

A little past noon on 27 February 2019, Junaid (name changed), a chicken-shop owner in a
small village in central Karnataka, scrolled through Facebook. The 21-year-old had bought a
smartphone phone 15 days earlier, but couldn’t read or write. Photos and videos occupied his
desultory afternoons.
A day earlier, the Indian government had announced its air strike on Balakot in Pakistan’s
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, a retaliation for the militant attack that killed 40 soldiers in
Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir on 14 February 2019. In Junaid’s village, more than 2,500
km from the tense international border, many took to social media to applaud the Indian
Army. Junaid did the same and, in the lull of the afternoon, selected a picture of soldiers to
post. The image bore a caption at the bottom, in English, which he couldn’t read.
Within 15 minutes, friends were calling Junaid. He had selected a picture captioned “I stand
with Pakistan Aramy (sic)”. He deleted it in panic but screenshots of his Facebook deed had
spread through the village. “Five minutes later, the police came to the shop and took me
away. I told them many times it was a mistake,” said Junaid. The local deputy superintendent
of police had initiated suo moto action.

Junaid was charged under Section 124A (sedition) and section 153 (provocation with the
intent to cause a riot) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By evening, his chicken shop had been
burned down. He would end up spending four months and 10 days in jail, as his family was
driven into debt. When he returned to a sharply polarised village, he was called a traitor.
Junaid’s case was the first of a bizarre series of arrests by the Karnataka police across the
state.
Two days later, policemen from the same station arrested a partially blind, 21-year old old
Hindu shopkeeper from a village 15 km away for posting a picture of Pakistani soldiers.
Police in the neighbouring jurisdiction arrested a 28-year-old Hindu shepherd, then tracked
down and arrested a 42-year-old daily-wager who had migrated to a city 100 km away for
posting the same photo with the same caption.

Nearly 70 km away, a 32-year-old electrician was arrested. And 200 km away, in the
congested bylanes of South Bengaluru, a 32-year-old bakery shop employee was charged
with sedition too. He had committed the same mistake as Junaid.
It appeared to be a coordinated police operation, but the arresting officers in each case were
unaware of the other cases. The accused did not know one another. None of them could read
English. All of them were accused of the same crime: posting a profile picture with an
English caption supporting Pakistan. All were charged under the draconian law against
sedition that was introduced by the colonial administration in 1870 and invoked against
Indian nationalists and revolutionaries.

These are among the 53 sedition cases filed against 204 individuals in Karnataka between
2010 and 2021. Of these, 20 cases were filed against 46 individuals for their expressions on
social media platforms, according to an Article 14 database that mines multiple media, legal
and police sources to record all sedition cases filed between January 2010 and February 2021.
Karnataka ranks first in India by number of people against whom sedition cases have been
filed for sharing content or making commentary on social media. Uttar Pradesh (UP) topped
the list by number of cases: 32 against 40 people.
Our database reveals that across India, 102 cases were filed against 152 people for creating
audios, photos or videos or for sharing content on social media. And 55.9% of these were
filed in Karnataka and UP. The cases have resulted in loss of jobs, accumulation of debt and
isolation of accused, in particular, Muslims.

It has been 137 days since a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court on 23 February
2021 challenging the constitutionality of sedition. Kishorechandra Wangkchem and Kanhaiya
Lal Shukla, two journalists arrested for sedition, are the petitioners in this case. Sashi Kumar,
the current Chairman of the Asian School of Journalism and the founder of Asianet, has
intervened in this petition. The petition was listed for hearing on 12 July 2021, with the
Supreme Court seeking responses from the Attorney General and the Centre. The petition is
now listed for 27 July 2021.
In the last five years the Supreme Court rejected two constitutional challenges to sedition. In
2016, Common Cause, an advocacy, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought
certification from the director general of police “that the seditious act either led to the
incitement of violence or had the tendency or the intention to create public disorder”. It also
asked for an identical certificate from the magistrate, in cases where private complaints were
filed.

The Supreme Court rejected the Common Cause PIL. In 2021, a bench headed by the then
Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, rejected a petition filed by three lawyers challenging the
constitutionality of sedition. These challenges come at a time when the rise of Internet use
prompts private thoughts to go public, and varieties of online criticism are increasingly
considered by the police to be seditious.

Social Media Sedition Cases: Facebook Leads

India has seen a surge in smartphone usage and Internet access as costs of handsets and data
plummeted. In 2010, India had an estimated 92 million Internet users. By 2020, this figure
had exceeded 687 million, a growth of nearly 650%. The number of people using the Internet
in rural areas exceeded those accessing it from urban India.
By 2020, Whatsapp was used by 530 million Indians and Facebook by 448 million Indians.
Facebook features prominently in sedition cases nationwide. Article 14 found that 84 people
were arrested for Facebook activity—a little more than half of all those arrested for their
online activity across the country.
In 36 sedition cases, the accused created or forwarded WhatsApp messages, or were
administrators of WhatsApp groups. The accused in many of these cases are poor people from
rural backgrounds, or students. Twitter posts led to 31 sedition cases.

The use of sedition law in these cases violates Supreme Court decisions in the 1962 Kedar
Nath Singh vs State of Bihar and the 1995 Balwant Singh & Bhupinder Singh vs State of
Punjab. In these cases, the court made it clear that the sedition law cannot be used in cases
where slogans from individuals do not incite violence. A pro-Pakistan message, posted
accidentally or otherwise, does not by itself incite violence against the State.

On 31 May 2021, a three-judge Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud flagged the
indiscriminate use of the sedition law against critics, journalists, social media users, activists
and citizens. “It is time to define the limits of sedition,” Justice Chandrachud said.
How Sedition Cases Rose After 2014
Of the sedition cases in Karnataka over the decade, 47 (or 88%) were filed after 2014 when
Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office. This is well above the national average of 65%,
according to the Article 14 database, which records a total of 816 sedition cases and nearly
11,000 implicated individuals.
During this 2014-2021 period, Karnataka was governed by the Congress, a Congress-Janata
Dal (S) coalition and only recently a BJP government, suggesting that a spike in sedition
cases is agnostic of the ideology of the ruling dispensation in the state.

As with Junaid and others, there are spurts of sedition cases around certain events, such as the
Pulwama terrorist bombing in February 2019 and the protests against the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, in January 2020. There have been 29 cases of sedition since
the Pulwama attacks in Karnataka.
The spike in cases accompanied an increase in the use of sedition against those who posted
“Pro-Pakistan” or “anti-government” messages on social media, in particular Whatsapp and
Facebook.
‘Our Job Is To File A Case’
Article 14 attempted to ask police investigators in many of these cases how they arrived at the
decision to slap sedition charges for social media posts. Several policemen who filed the case
have since been transferred elsewhere. In two police stations in central Karnataka, where five
sedition cases were filed, policemen said it was their “duty” to ensure that anti-India
messages are curbed in a “strict” manner.
“These messages had been circulating among villagers and it was causing some distress. We
had to take action,” said a mid-level official at one of the stations. He was involved in
‘investigations’ into three sedition cases. He said there was “a lot of josh” and anger among
people after the Pulwama attack. “We didn’t want these kinds of pro-Pakistan messages to be
sent or left unpunished.”
There was a brief discussion on the kind of case to be filed, he said. Eventually, it was
“agreed” that pro-Pakistan messages attracted a sedition charge. Asked about the Supreme
Court rulings on the filing of sedition cases in accordance with Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of
Bihar, a policeman replied: “Let the courts decide if they are innocent or guilty of sedition. It
is our job to file cases if there is a complaint.”
Costly Mistakes By The Digitally Illiterate
Article 14 contacted the accused or their lawyers in 32 cases of sedition filed across
Karnataka. Detailed interviews were conducted in 25 cases, including visits to their homes in
January and February.
A majority of the cases where contact was not established were terrorism cases (including
alleged Maoist activities) or rioting cases. Article 14 is keeping the names and addresses of
those charged anonymous as per their request in some cases, and for their protection in all
cases.
In Karnataka, nine of the 20 social media-related sedition cases were against rural internet
users.
Most were first-time smartphone users. The local mobile shop employee downloaded and set
up accounts on Facebook, Whatsapp and Youtube for most of these men. Villagers were then
added as ‘friends’ on Facebook, and the new number added to village-level Whatsapp groups.
Many said they couldn’t read English or Kannada—they were functionally illiterate. They
used Facebook mostly to ‘like’ or share photos and videos, and Whatsapp interactions
revolved around pictures and audio messages.
“I bought a smartphone because I could listen to songs on YouTube or see photos and videos
on Facebook while I graze goats,” said Basava (name changed) a 28-year-old shepherd from
the socio-economically disadvantaged Kuruba community in central Karnataka.
In their FIR, the police claimed that Basava, who has studied till Class III, “confessed” to
uploading the photo of Pakistani soldiers as he “liked Pakistan”. However, when Article 14
visited the police station, officials conceded that it was likely an accidental post as Basava
was “naïve” and “technologically illiterate”. He spent four months in jail on a sedition charge.
Basava, who continues to visit the court for monthly hearings, said he doesn’t know what he
did. “I don’t understand the charge. I know I am not a deshdrohi,” he said.
His “mistake” has cost him his land and goats for the Rs 250,000 he raised to cover the legal
expenses since 2018.
Errors Interpreted As Terrorism
Former Supreme Court judge B Sudershan Reddy explained in 2020 that even shouting
“Pakistan Zindabad” would not amount to sedition, for India has not declared Pakistan an
enemy state, nor does sloganeering by an individual amount to a threat against the Indian
state. But local policemen apply the sedition law liberally, at life-altering costs for those
accused.
On 24 February 2020, in north Karnataka, a bored pharmaceutical salesman waiting at a
customer’s office spotted a video of a bird being rescued. This reminded him of a homily
from the Quran about helping the meek. He watched bits of the video with his phone’s
volume on low, shared it, and moved on to other posts. A day later, police arrested him.
They asked if the salesman had watched the video. He had not viewed it fully. They played it
for him.
“At the end, you can hear someone say those words,” he said, referring to “Pakistan
Zindabad”, a phrase he is scared to use even during the interview. “I was shocked and said I
didn’t know this. But they insisted it was a crime,” said the salesman who had initially
struggled to grasp the gravity of a sedition charge. He spent 108 days in prison.
The case, like many sedition cases, turned political. He was branded a traitor to the nation.
The complainant, a BJP member, and other right-wing organisations organised protests
against him. “I take pride in knowing Hindu religious texts as well as knowing the Quran.
When I was in jail, my family was sheltered by a Hindu family,” said the salesman, who was,
ironically, until the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, a part of the
BJP’s minority cell in the district. “I didn’t know a mistake online would be considered such
a heinous crime like I did some terrorism act against the country,” he said.
Muslims Wary Of Saying ‘Pakistan’
In at least two cases, sedition charges were applied on the interpretation of vague WhatsApp
statuses. There was no anti-India sloganeering in these cases. (Our earlier investigation into
sedition cases involving social media, sloganeering and an open letter found no evidence to
substantiate the grave charge under Section 124A.)
Soon after India’s Balakot strikes, along the southern edge of Karnataka, a 19-year-old
decided to express his pride for the retaliatory actions through his WhatsApp status. With
only partial knowledge of English grammar, he wrote: “We Will Wait and See India Bad Time
Start Now Any Way Pakistan Never Give up Must Take Revenge.”
The family’s lawyer said that the teenager, whose English is far from fluent, intended to
convey support for India. The complainant, a small store owner in the same village, viewed
the ambiguous jumble of words as an act in support of Pakistan.
In his complaint, he translated this phrase into Kannada, to mean: “We will wait and see. Bad
things have started for India. For this, Pakistan will definitely take revenge.” The student was
denied bail on multiple occasions and was in judicial custody for more than five months. “If
any Muslim utters the word Pakistan, it is assumed it is always in support. This prejudice has
seeped in everywhere,” said the lawyer.
Some 400 km away in central Karnataka, a 19-year-old chose to mark India’s Independence
Day in 2018 by posting a ‘patriotic’ TikTok video as his WhatsApp status. The video, created
by someone in Hyderabad, featured a man saluting an Indian flag with a patriotic song from
the Akshay Kumar-movie Kesari playing in the background. Overlaid on the tricolour were
stars and a crescent (‘chand tara’), a common symbol in Islam.
The youngster saw nothing wrong with the image. “During Ganesh chaturthi, don’t people in
the village put Ganesha’s image on the flag? Or Saraswati’s image on the Indian flag?” the
student said. He felt the video conveyed patriotic sentiments. The same day, he had also
posted a picture of himself saluting the tricolour as his WhatsApp profile photo.
Local Hindu right-wing groups took umbrage at his WhatsApp status video. The FIR said he
had overlaid the star and crescent from the Pakistan flag on to the Indian flag. Alongside
sedition charges, a case was filed under the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act,
1971. He was arrested and his bail rejected by lower courts. He was in jail for 75 days.
He missed classes and struggled to study even after his release. “My cell-mate was someone
accused of murder. There were people accused of rape in the same jail,” he said. After his
release, he and his family relocated to a city 100 km away. He continues his B.A. course only
through correspondence.
Kashmiri Students In Karnataka: Easy Targets
Students, particularly those from Kashmir, faced the brunt of post-Pulwama sedition cases in
the state. There were reports of Kashmiri students harassed or assaulted across the country. In
this charged atmosphere, Karnataka saw five sedition cases filed against nine Kashmiris.
Eight were students. Two cases were filed by college principals, two by batchmates, while a
local VHP leader was the complainant in one case.
In Bengaluru, three students were charged with sedition after a scuffle with a batchmate who
had sought bloody revenge for the Pulwama attack. In Hubballi, three students were charged
on the first anniversary of the terror attack for allegedly making pro-Pakistan and anti-India
videos. The students denied the allegations. In both cases, they were suspended from college
and continue to live in Bengaluru–as per the conditions of the bail order–while waiting for the
lengthy court process to end.
“Sedition charge against students is an unacceptably harsh punishment that will ruin their
futures & will further alienate them,” wrote Davood Ahmad, Secretary of J&K Students’
Association in a letter to Union home minister Amit Shah and Karnataka chief minister B.S.
Yeddyurappa in May 2021. Citing students’ academics and career, he requested for the
charges to be withdrawn.
Sedition Charge For Questioning Local Qazi

Not all social media sedition cases involve Pakistan or Kashmir. The casual, almost frivolous,
use of the charge is illustrated in a sedition case against a madrasa teacher in January 2020.
The 34-year-old teacher had shared a post – written by someone else – questioning the
“partisan attitude” of a qazi, the head of a mosque in Mangalore, and sought to know why he
entertained the police commissioner whose department had fired upon CAA protestors.
“I think it was a 2,000-word article and I had seen the headline and read only a bit. I shared it
on a WhatsApp group asking if there was any truth to this,” said the teacher who blamed
tensions in a local Sunni organisation for the complaint. Somebody from the group
approached the police with a complaint regarding promoting enmity between groups. This
transformed into a sedition case in the FIR.
The teacher successfully applied for anticipatory bail, and a couple of months later, obtained a
bail order from the Karnataka High Court that effectively questioned why sedition charges
had been applied in this case.

Archaic Law That Is Easily Abused

Article 14 found not just a casual interpretation of sedition law, but also its expansion in scope
leading to a sweep of arrests.
“Sedition is an archaic law that serves no purpose. It has to be repealed. But, much like
Section 66A of the Informational Technology Act (which had been struck down by the
Supreme Court in 2015), it is deliberately vague and full of gaps. This allows for its abuse,”
said Apar Gupta, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation. The foundation had, in
their submission to the Law Commission in 2018, noted that sedition was increasingly being
used and abused against citizens for their social media posts. A post is often taken out of
context, he said. “And because social media posts function as public records and are visible to
all, the legal process for bail is often much more difficult,” he said.

WhatsApp Admin Charged For Members’ Posts

In one case, administrators of WhatsApp groups, who had little to do with the contentious
message, were also arrested.
In 2018-end, two 19-year-olds clicked a selfie and used a photo app to embellish the image.
Among the editing touches was a green frame inlaid with stars and a crescent. They didn’t
know that the bottom of the frame bore the words ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, in English. They sent
the photo to their local WhatsApp group.
An uproar rose in the tightly-knit village flanked on all sides by paddy fields. The police
arrested the two teenagers. A sedition charge was added. One of them was released after 10
months, the other after a year.
“It was a mistake, but they made him stay in jail for 13 months,” said the mother of the
primary accused who sent the photo. The family spent Rs 500,000 on legal expenses, she
said. The daily-wage labourers are yet to pay back the loans.
But besides the two 19-year-olds, the police also added the names of the two group admins in
this FIR.
A farmer, a Hindu, was one of those arrested for being admin of this group. The other admin
procured anticipatory bail.
“It was only in jail that I realised they had implicated me in a deshdrohi case. I was confused
and angry,” said the farmer, a father of four children. He spent two months in jail before
being granted bail. He continues to pay off the Rs 100,000 loan he took for legal fees.
He was released on bail, but the deshdrohi tag stuck steadfast. The farmer had local political
aspirations, and ended up losing elections in 2019 for the local taluk panchayat and for a
cooperative bank.
For 10-Minute Mistake, A Lifetime Lost
Interviews with the accused revealed that in the months or years since the charges, they
incurred loss of jobs, debts ranging between Rs 100,000 and 400,000, isolation and
polarisation. Muslims faced the worst of the consequences.
In his little central Karnataka village, Junaid picked up the pieces of his wrecked life. He
rebuilt his chicken shop, but outside the village this time. Saffron flags fluttered everywhere
in the village since his arrest.
“The case against me polarised the village,” he said. Before his arrest, Ramzan and Eid were
observed with some pomp. “Last year, right-wing groups removed our flags saying there are
traitors in the community,” he said, explaining why festivities have dimmed.
In Bengaluru, the 32-year-old bakery employee who spent three months in jail is still the sole
earner for his young family. The legal processes pushed him deep into indebtedness, and he
couldn’t find a new job. “I have no love for Pakistan. I am an Indian and India is my country.
I may not know how to use technology very well and mistakes can happen. But, for a mistake
that was corrected in ten minutes, I have lost my livelihood and life,” he said.
First published in Article 14.
 COMPARATIVE LAW
Whilst there are many countries that still have sedition laws, the general trend is certainly away
from such laws, which are often remnants of colonial era political landscapes. In some
jurisdictions, sedition has been repelled altogether. Where they remain these laws are not
uncontroversial or uncontested, brushing up against national constitutions and human rights
frameworks. In some cases, the scope of the law has been narrowed to a minimalist
construction, prosecutions are rare, and punishments are often nominal. This next section is a
brief outline of some of the contemporary approaches internationally to sedition. United
Kingdom In the UK, Seditious libel was abolished under the Coroners and Justice Act 2010. This
abolition the consequence of the laws contravention of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 and the
underlying rights of the European Convention on Human Rights which the HRA upheld. Prior to
this however, the law was rarely engaged and the rule under ex parte Choudhury restricted the
application of seditious libel to cases where there was a provocation to violence.39 However, the
protection awarded by the ECHR does not extend to non-European nationals. In addition, the
Terrorism Act of 2000 includes offenses such as “inciting terrorist acts” and “providing training
for terrorist purposes at home or overseas.” New Zealand 39 R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary
Magistrate ex parte Choudhury, [1991] 1 All ER 313. In New Zealand sedition was abolished in
2007, under the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007. It was understood
that the criminalisation of dissenting views was not a useful or appropriate response, that
itcontravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights and that sedition in New Zealand bore a ‘”tainted
history”. 40 The New Zealand parliament also noted the vagueness of sedition, its irrelevance in
the contemporary context, the appropriateness of other criminal law provisions to deal with
cases of incitement to violence and importantly, the “chilling effect” that such laws have upon
free speech. USA In the USA, under Brandenburgv Ohio, the court said that advocating a doctrine
of violence in abstract terms was not considered sedition, whereas advocating immediate
violence was.41 The prior, it was held was protected by the First Amendment and the distinction
was the immediacy of the threat. This law operates under civil jurisdiction and there is a separate
code governing military justice where both sedition and failure to supress sedition is punishable
under a court marshal. Nigeria In Choke Obi, the Nigerian laws on sedition were found to be
constitutional. Criticism of the Government, insofar as it was a“malignant matter,” was
seditious.42 Subsequent cases such as Nwankwohave challenged this ruling on the grounds that
sedition is incompatible with free speech.43 The matter is not finally settled but some scholars,
such as F.C. Nwoke, suggest that as the former was decided under colonial rule, the latter is more
authoritative.44 Australia In Australia, Sedition laws are codified under some states criminal
codes and the federal Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, which replaced the references to sedition in the
Federal Crimes Act 1914. Prior to 2005, the last conviction of sedition had been in 1961.45
Malaysia In Malaysia, sedition is governed under the Sedition Act 1948, which criminalises one
who “does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to
do”, acts or speaks or prints words which have a seditious tendency. In addition, the act covers
any person who has seditious material in their possession, without lawful excuse. The stringency
of these laws are 40 Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, 2007, available at
http://parliament.nz/nr/rdonlyres/ob8ad487-c576-4bce-9a31-
fd96362817f7/56750/1523crimesedition3.pdf 41 Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 298 (1957). 42 DPP
v Chike Obi, [1961] 1 All NLR, 186. 43 State v Arthur Nwankwo, (1985) 6CLR 228. 44 F.C Nwoke,
“The Law of Sedition and the Concept of Press Freedom in Nigeria,” available at
http//dspace.unijos.edu.ng/handle/10485/633. 45 Cooper v The Queen, [1961] HCA 16, (1961)
105 CLR 177, 35 ALJR 32, [1961] ALR 725. considered reasonable restrictions on Art 10(1) of the
Malaysian Constitution dealing with free speech. The sedition laws in Malaysia are currently
undergoing a process of governmental review.46 Readings * GaraLaMarche, “Some Thoughts on
the ‘Chilling Effect,’” Art JournalVol. 50, No. 4, Censorship II, (Winter 1991), pp. 56-58 * Tan Yock
Lin, “Sedition and its New Clothes in Singapore, 2011 Sing. J Legal Stud. 212. * “Sedition Act to be
Comprehensively Reviewed: Najb”, 17/04/2012, www.mysinchew.com accessed on 18/04/2012.
* F.C Nwoke, “The Law of Sedition and the Concept of Press Freedom in Nigeria,” available at
http//dspace.unijos.edu.ng/handle/10485/633. 5. THE AFFECTIVE TURN - THE AFFECT OF THE
LAW In this section, we will be examining the affect of the law and of media constructions of the
law. Our concern here is how the laws, the rhetoric that judges and writers employ and the
implementation of the law impacts upon the wider society. This can be divided into three
sections. A). The legal mechanisms of fear of persecution and prosecution. B). The moral panic
created by the institutions of law and the media. C). Manufacturing patriotism and affection We
shall see how, these three points are used to thematise sites of struggle, which gravitate around
the law of sedition. a. Law as a mechanism for generating the fear of prosecution and
persecution. There are a plethora of mechanisms that governments can take advantage of to
silence resistance amongst the population. Traditional forms of censorship, prohibition of
publications, confiscation of printing presses, punishment of violators such as imprisonment,
fines or deportation are some of the more obvious legal means. Limitations over the avenues
through which dissent and alternate voices can be legitimately issued are another way. According
to Dhavan, this approach as traditionally employed in India, 46 “Sedition Act to be
Comprehensively Reviewed: Najb”, 17/04/2012, www.mysinchew.com accessed on 18/04/2012.
helped to steer the emerging polity towards a “government by institution” by insisting that only
acceptable form of influence on governments had to come through the properly designated
institutional and social channels.47 However, the more covert means is the psychological
pressure - the threat of sanctions and indeed of the trial itself - which encourages self-censorship
amongst the population. The over use (and misuse) of S 124A in recent times can perhaps be
viewed as means of reinforcing this threat, a method of silencing not just the transgressor, but
signalling to the wider population the very real possibility of prosecution. The former
AttorneyGeneral, Soli Sorabjee, touches upon this fear when he suggested that the spate of
arrests have invited “an atmosphere of paranoia.”48 Justice Holmes in his dissenting judgement
in Gitlow v People of New York said that, “(e)very idea is an incitement. The only difference
between the expression of opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s
enthusiasm for the result.”49 If this is the case also in Indian law, then those with opinions which
run counter to the dominate discourse, should be careful about how much enthusiasm they
speak with. b. The law and the media as generating moral panics. Lord Mansfield drew an
analogy in 1784 when he said that a licentious press was like a Pandora’s box and that it was “the
source of every evil.”50In India, the law also uses the fear of the consequences of free speech to
justify restrictions. The courts utilise the fear of rebellion, of social unrest and of the dire
consequence to national order that permitting seditious material would unleash. This moral
panic ispredominantly directed against various political and religious organisations. The “threat”
that such associations pose to the Indian government is real, even if it is wholly manufactured. If
the dreaded eventuality comes to pass, then this substantiates the threat; if it does not, then it is
because the enemy “would have if they could have” but the countermeasures proved
effective.51 Once generated, the threat to society is existent in its potentiality. The threat is real
insofar as its affect is felt in us beings. It breathes through the fear of the public. It is thus
embodied, not abstract. But this paradigm can be reversed. The higher courts, liberally inclined
political orators, human rights advocates and the sections of the English speaking press 47 R.
Dhavan, “Obtaining Moral Consensus in a Law and Order Society,” Only the Good News; On the
Law of the Press in India, Manohar Publications, 1987, p. 276. 48 Staff Reporter, “Binayak’s Work
is Great, His Conviction is
Unjust: Amartya Sen,” The Hindu, Online Edition, 09/01/2011, www.hindu.com, accessed
10/04/2012. 49 Gitlow v People of New York, No. 19 Supreme Court 268 US 652; 45 S. Ct 625;
1925 US. 50 King v Shipley (1784), 3 Douglas’s Rep. 170. 51 Brian Massumi, “The Future Birth of
the Affective Fact”, The Affect Theory Reader, Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.),
Duke University Press, 2010, p 76. employ a similar discourse of threatagainst the law of sedition.
According to them, it is the law itself that poses the greatest threat to our society and our way of
life, by chipping away at fundamental freedoms and encroaching on democratic rights.52 This
converts tolerance into a positive ideology in itself. When Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased
Voltaire as saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it,” she articulated concisely this liberalist position.53 c. Manufacturingpatriotism Affection can
not 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. (Mahatma Gandhi, March 18, 1922.)54 However, affection can be
manufactured. A good way to do it is though institutionalised protection of fundamental
freedoms that people value. Another is to present the government in the role of defender of
those freedoms, rather than a force which steals them in the night. The Government can better
generate affection by using the carrot, rather than the stick. Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis
were both proponents of the “marketplace of ideas.”55 The “marketplace of ideas” is an
economic metaphor by which more free speech can never be a bad thing. In the same way that
minimal state intervention into market forces is to be valued, so is minimal state obstruction of
the First Amendmentrights.They advocated their staunch application of the right to free speech
on the grounds that is was essential to the maintenance of government, and not a threat to it.
Such sentiment is echoed in the Nigerian case of State v Ivory Trumpet Publishing Company
Limited where the court held that, in fact, a thick culture of free speech was, rather than
detrimental to the stability of the state, essential to it. 56 The greater the importance of
safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force, the
more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free
press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the
end that government may be responsible to the will of the people and that changes, if desired,
may 52 Vidya Subrahmaniam, “Mounting Outrage Against Binayak Conviction”, The Hindu,
28/12/2010, Chandrasekar Bhattacharjee, “Fighting the Sedition law is every Indian’s sacred
duty,” The Sunday Indian, 19/04/2012, Human Rights Watch, “India: Repeal Sedition Law,”
05/01/2011. 53 Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “Helvetius: The Controdiction,” The Friends of Voltaire,
Smith, London, 1906, p. 199. 54 Mohandas Gandhi, op. cit 1. 55 From Justice Holmes dissenting
Judgement in Abrams v United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919). 56 State v Ivory Trumpet
Publishing Company Limited, [1984] 5 NCLR 736, 748. be obtained by peaceful means. Therein
lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of Constitutional Government. If ones aim is
to nurture patriotism, such rhetoric seems to be a far more effective tool than the
implementation of oppressive laws. Readings * AnandTeltumbde, “Yet another BinayakSen”,
Economic and Political Weekly, 04/02/2011, vol. 46, no. 6. * Arnold Hunt, “’Moral Panics’and
Moral Language in the Media,” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4, (Dec. 1997), pp.
629- 648. * Fred S. Siebert, “The Libertarian Theory of the Press,” Four Theories of the Press: The
Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social responsibility and Soviet Communist Concepts of what the press
should do and be, Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, William Schramm (eds.), University of
Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1963. * Brian Massumi, “The Future Birth of the Affective
Fact”, The Affect Theory Reader, Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.), Duke University
Press, 2010 pp72- 110 * Brian Massumi, “Fear: (The Spectrum Said)”,2005, available at
http://www.brianmassumi.com/english/essays.html. 6. TWO CASE STUDIES a. BinayakSen In the
well-published case of Dr. BinayakSen, the General Secretary of the Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties, was arrested under Section 124A of the IPC, under Section 121A of the IPC and under
state law, The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2005. Binayak was charged with conspiring
with NarayanSanyal and PiyushGuha against the Indian Government. It was claimed that he
passed letters onto NarayanSanyal, who was himself arrested in possession of Naxalite literature.
Dr Sen provided healthcare to the Adivasis in remote areas of Chhattisgarh. He was also involved
in organising fact-finding campaigns into human rights violations in the region, including
murders, deaths in custody and deaths from malnutrition. Civil rights organisations have
presented the arrest (and later conviction) as an articulated retaliation for Sen’s human rights
work, in particular the uncovering of the atrocities of the SalwaJudum in Dantewada and the
police’s involvement in this.57Sen is vocal critic of the Government programme of arming
villagers to suppress the Naxal insurgency in the state. Most of the reports in the English media
frame the conviction as politically motivated. Some reports have said that the arrest, as a
government strategy for silencing dissent has backfired; that it has worked to draw attention to
the draconian sedition and state level laws.58 This is particularly so since Dr Sen won the
prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human Rights, and after a letter was
delivered to the Prime-Minister calling for Sen’s release and signed by twenty-two Nobel Prize
Winners. b. Koondankulam protests Another application of the sedition laws has been mass
arrests of protesters in Idinthakarai and Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. Amidst protests over the
safety of the Koondankulam power plant, the police have arrested up to 6000 people in the
months from September to December 2011 alone.59 They have been charged with sedition
(under Section124A) and waging war against the Government (under Section 121) of the Indian
Penal Code. Police officials say that the figures are inflated and that there is no doctrine of
harassment. The arrested include political activists including those from The Peoples Movement
Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), and large numbers local villagers and fishermen who will be
affected by the plant’s opening. Some media reports have said that the use of sedition laws,
rather than for example, terrorism laws, is a strategic practice to impose sanction and an
atmosphere of fear in the region, without drawing unwanted media attention to the protests.60
Dr. Udayakumar, a representative of the PMANE has made claims that the power plant is unsafe,
challenging the lack of consultation with the public and lack of transparency of the process. He
was reported as saying that “It’s an authoritarian project that has been imposed on the
people.”61Udayakumar also said that he 57 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights, “Conviction of
Binayak Sen, Piyush Guha and Narayan Sanyal,”6/19/2011, www.pudr.org, accessed 16/04/2012;
Amnesty International, “India: Human Rights Defenders Need Effective Protection; Amnesty
International’s written statement to the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council (27
February – 23 March 2012),” 13/02/2012, www.amnesty.org accessed 16/04/2012; Democracy
Now!, “India’s Most Famous Political Prisoner Dr Binayak Sen Sentenced to Life in Prison,”
27/12/2010, www.democracynow.org. 58 “Sentence First Verdict Afterwards; India’s Anti-Maoist
Laws Become an International Embarrasment,” The Economist, 29/05/2008,
www.economist.com/world/asia. 59 Pallavi Polanki, “More Sedition Cases Against Anti-Nuke
Protestors than Maoist Militants,” First Post, 21/04/2012, www.firstpost.com/politics. 60 Pallavi
Polanki, Ibid. 61 Rahul Bedi, “Indian Activists Fear Nuclear Plant Accident,” New Zealand Herald,
28/10/2011, www.nzherald.co.nz. has declined to participate in some further talks, for the fear
that he may be arrested. This is illustrative of the use of fear to silence protesters voices and to
stop the open discussion of issues regarding the health of the local population and
environmental welfare.
 Conclusion
Therefore we can conclude that act of sedition can only be imposed when a person tends to create
“disaffection” towards the Government which may leads to rebellion. Sedition and Freedom of
expression are completely interwoven and inseparable, the fine gap is the interpretation of words by
the reader. Internet and Social Media plays major role in any situation as well as it is a coin with two
folds. The one which enables and empowers millions of possibilities, while others misuse the same
benefits. It depends on the individuals which aspect of the internet one uses. The exercise of these
powers are up to individuals, the statements published or broadcasted over the internet could create
mutiny even rebellious acts of violence. Therefore we can interpret that the internet does play a
significant part as well as performs as a medium for seditious publication. One cannot curtail the
expression over the internet nor can it be prohibited since it is a part of fundamental right, easily
accessible. But we cannot deny the fact that the misuse of Internet has led many innocent people to
be charged for sedition. Sedition charges can be imposed even if the speech is made in digital form
upon the internet. The only challenge the statute faces is with regard to anonymity over the Digital
World. Altogether Sedition, Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Internet is a lethal
combination for a democratic country, which cannot be curtailed.