Context
- Recently, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that trials, appeals, or proceedings involving the offense of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can proceed in courts across the country if the accused has no objection.
Understanding Sedition
1. Historical Perspective (Colonial Roots)
- Origin: Sedition law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Babington Macaulay but was omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. It was later introduced into the IPC via Section 124A in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.
- Colonial Utility: It was heavily used by the British administration to suppress the Indian National Movement.
- Key Historical Trials:
- Jogendra Chandra Bose (1891): The first prominent case.
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897 & 1908): Tried for his writings in the journal Kesari.
- Mahatma Gandhi (1922): Tried for his articles in the publication Young India. Gandhi famously called Section 124A the “prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
2. Legal & Statutory Perspective
- Definition under Section 124A IPC: It defines sedition as any action—by words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representation—that brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.
- Nature of the Offence:
- It is a non-bailable offense.
- It is a cognizable offense (police can arrest without a warrant).
- Punishment ranges from imprisonment for three years to a life term, to which a fine may be added.
- Special Note: The colonial-era sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been replaced by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While the term “sedition” is removed, the new provision broadens the scope to criminalize acts threatening India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
3. Constitutional Perspective (Fundamental Rights vs. State Security)
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(2): Places reasonable restrictions on free speech. The grounds include the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, or morality.
4. Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
| Case Law | Key Ruling / Principle |
| Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) | A Constitution Bench upheld the validity of Section 124A but significantly narrowed its scope. The court ruled that a person can be charged with sedition only if their speech involves incitement to violence or intention/tendency to create public disorder. Strong criticism of the government without inciting violence is not sedition. |
| Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) | The Supreme Court held that merely shouting slogans (e.g., “Khalistan Zindabad”) a few times, without any accompanying threat to public response or incitement to violence, does not amount to sedition. |
With reference to the law of sedition in India, consider the following statements:
1. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1870 during British rule.
2. Under the Kedar Nath Singh case (1962), mere criticism of the government without incitement to violence amounts to sedition.
3. Sedition under Section 124A IPC was a cognizable and non-bailable offense.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 2 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer:
(a) 1 and 3 only
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is correct: Section 124A was added to the IPC in 1870 during British rule.
• Statement 2 is incorrect: In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that only speech involving incitement to violence or public disorder can be treated as sedition. Mere criticism of the government is not sedition.
• Statement 3 is correct: Sedition under Section 124A IPC was a cognizable and non-bailable offense.
