Sedition in Criminal Law

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Sedition as an offence. Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has the right to free speech and the expression of their opinions. Article 19(2) provides appropriate limitations on the freedom of speech and expression, so this freedom is not unrestricted. However, acts, words, signs, or representations that are thought to be contemptuous of the Indian government are punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Sedition is the legal term for speech that is considered to be hostile or disloyal to the state. Section 124A is a broad law that includes defamation of the government, but does not extend to criticism of specific administrative actions or measures made in good faith.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. Sedition Law of India
2. History of Sedition Law
3. Activities that are Seditious in Nature
4. Importance of Sedition Law in India
5. Constitutional Validity of Sedition Laws
6. Defences Available to a Person With Sedition
7. Problems with Sedition Law in India
8. Case Laws on Sedition in Criminal Law
9. Conclusion

Sedition Law of India

According to Section 124 A IPC, sedition is defined as any act that causes or attempts to cause hatred or contempt for the legally established Indian government, or that excites or attempts to excite dissatisfaction toward it. Life in prison with the possibility of an additional fine or up to three years in jail are among the possible sentences.

History of Sedition Law

British MPs tried to suppress the Indian press's anti-British agenda by passing sedition legislation. Thomas Macaulay wrote it first in 1837, but it was removed when the Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860. Nonetheless, Sir James Stephen's modification to the IPC in 1870 added section 124 A. As a result, sedition was made illegal under section 124A of the IPC by special Act XVII of 1870. The law of sedition was also mentioned in the Defence of India Rules and the Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, both of which have since been repealed. During the 19th and 20th centuries, a few prominent sedition cases involved Indian nationalist leaders. The first trial included Jogendra Chandra Bose, the editor of the Bangobasi newspaper in 1891. In addition, two significant historical trials to date include the trials of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922 and Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1909. Gandhi and Shankerlal, the banker and owner of Young India, were charged for three pieces that appeared in the weekly.

Activities that are Seditious in Nature

The definition of "sedition" is a contentious issue in India. As per the Indian Penal Code, an act is said to be "seditious" if it possesses the following elements:

• Any written or spoken words, as well as signs like placards and banners (visual representation)

• Must provoke enmity, scorn, or disrespect for the Government of India

• must bring about "imminent violence" or disturbance in the neighbourhood.

According to the Court's interpretation of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 124-A, the following behaviour is considered "seditious."

• Groups shouting slogans against the government, like "Khalistan Zindabad." Slogans raised once or twice in passing were deemed to be non-seditious.

• For a speech to be deemed seditious, it must encourage violence or public disturbance. It has been further interpreted in later judgments to encompass "incitement of imminent violence."

• Any literary work that encourages unrest and violence in public.

Importance of Sedition Law in India

• The Indian Penal Code's Section 124A can help suppress terrorist, separatist, and anti-national groups.

• It protects the elected government from attempts to topple it violently and illegally. One of the main requirements for the stability of the State is the continued presence of the legal administration.

• If a court's contempt demands punishment, then a government's contempt must likewise carry a penalty.

• There are Maoist insurgencies in numerous parts of several states, and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups blatantly advocate for overthrowing the state government by revolution. Given this, it would be absurd to eliminate Section 124A based only on a few well-publicized cases of misuse.

Constitutional Validity of Sedition Laws

The idea of free speech has gained international recognition, and everyone agrees that it is a fundamental human right. These rights are guaranteed in India by Article 19 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. Geographical boundaries cannot limit the aforementioned right because it is everyone's right to freely exchange ideas and viewpoints with others inside and outside of India.

The debate concerning the legality of India's section 124 IPC 1860 sedition statute revolves around whether, when argued against, it breaches Article 19(1) and, when argued in favour of, it is compliant with Article 19(2). A law on Article 19 must, among other things, not be arbitrary and any limitations or restrictions placed on rights under Article 19(1)(a) must adhere to the reasonable constraints listed in Article 19(2). Let's examine each in more detail.

The authority to guarantee and defend citizens' rights has been granted to courts. The "freedom of speech and expression" is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), however, it is subject to restrictions outlined in Article 19(2), which specifies when a legislator may restrict this right.

Therefore, the question that needs to be addressed right now is whether or not Article 19(1)(a) and the 124A section of the IPC contradict. This is considered to be reflected in the following points:

• The IPC's Section 124A is unconstitutional because it violates Article 19(1)(a)'s fundamental right to free speech and isn't justified by the phrase "in the interest of public order."

• Section 124A is not invalid since the phrase "in the interests of public order" has a broader meaning and shouldn't be limited to a single facet of public order.

• Section 124A IPC is not entirely void, although it does have some validity. In the case of Indramani Singh v. State of Manipur, it was determined that although Section 124A, which forbids just expressing displeasure, is supra vires, the restrictions placed on the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(2) may be deemed intra vires.

In 1959, the Allahabad Supreme Court declared that Section 124A violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Defences Available to a Person With Sedition

To get an exemption from criminal liability, one may raise the following defences:

• that he did not perform the relevant act, speak the words, write the sign, or create the representation.

• He did not attempt to show disdain or contempt.

• The government should not be the object of such dissatisfaction.

Problems with Sedition Law in India

• Being a holdover from colonialism, Section 124A is inappropriate for a democratic society. It is a restriction on the rightful use of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Dissent and criticism of the government play a vital role in a vibrant public conversation in a democracy. They cannot be contrived to appear as sedition.

• It is essential to democracy to be able to question, criticize, and choose new leaders.

• The British have abolished the law in their own country, having imposed sedition as a means of suppressing Indians. India has no justification for keeping this part in place.

• The terms used under Section 124A, such as "disaffection," are vague and open to different interpretations based on the whims and caprices of the investigators.

• Provisions in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 2019 and the Indian Penal Code penalise "overthrowing the administration with brutality and unlawful means" and "disturbing the public order." These are sufficient to protect the integrity of the country.

• The misuse of the sedition act is victimising political dissension. Executive discretion is inherently broad and focused, which makes clear misuse possible.

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was ratified by India in 1979. Internationally accepted standards for protecting the right to free speech are established by the ICCPR. On the other hand, mishandling sedition and hurriedly filing accusations are at odds with India's international obligations.

Case Laws on Sedition in Criminal Law

In the case of, Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar

In this case, it was held that The law, which is constitutional, applied to statements made or published with the implied purpose of violently overthrowing the government. As long as they are not encouraging violence against the government, citizens are free to criticize it to cause chaos in the community. The Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of Section 124A, limiting its scope to actions that have the intent or propensity to cause chaos, disrupt the peace, or encourage violence.

In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

In this case, In front of the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Madras State's decree prohibiting his paper "Cross Roads" was unlawful. Article 19(1) of the Constitution grants him the right to speech and expression, and this has been violated. According to the Supreme Court, limitations under Article 19(2) should only be implemented in situations where the safety of the general public is in jeopardy. Situations where this kind of conundrum might not arise are neither constitutional nor legitimate. The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner's claim under Article 32 of the Constitution and reversed the Madras State order.

Conclusion

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution establishes the rights to speech and expression. Sedition is a crime in India covered by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The offence of sedition violates Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In the offence of sedition, efforts are made by the offender to bring dissatisfaction against the Government. The punishment for sedition is imprisonment for three years and a fine.