SEDITION LAW IN INDIA: EXPLAINED

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:   NEWSCLICK 

Context

India has replaced sedition law, Section 124A of the IPC, with Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), but critics argue the new law's broad wording continues to threaten free speech and dissent against government actions. 

Sedition Law in India

Sedition refers to an act or speech that provokes or attempts to provoke hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law.

1870 – British enactment: Colonial government inserted IPC 124A in 1870 to suppress Indian nationalists. It was used against freedom fighters (Tilak, Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, etc.).

1942–1947 – Judicial interpretation: In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs King Emperor (1942), the Federal Court limited sedition to speech inciting public disorder. But in King Emperor vs Bhalerao (1947) the Privy Council rejected that limit.

Post-Independence changes: Constituent Assembly (1949) dropped sedition from the Constitution. However, the First Amendment (1951) allowed “public order” as a free-speech restriction.

• In 1973, Indira Gandhi’s government made sedition (IPC 124A) cognizable, permitting arrest without warrant.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Section 124A IPC punishes anyone who, by words or signs, brings “hatred, contempt or disaffection” against the government established by law in India.

Supreme Court limits (Kedar Nath Singh, 1962): The SC upheld 124A as constitutional under Art. 19(1)(a)/(2), but narrowed it.

• Sedition applies only if speech (a) has intent or tendency to incite violence or public disorder, and (b) aims to subvert or overthrow the government by force.
• Pure criticism of government policy – even harsh words calling for reform – is not sedition.
• Court emphasized that “views different from the Government are not seditious”. In practice, a statement must cross the line into inciting imminent disorder to trigger 124A.
• Truth for public good and parliamentary remarks on public affairs are excluded from sedition.

D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997): Supreme Court mandated that police officers making an arrest must wear proper identification, prepare a memo of arrest, inform the arrestee's family or friends, and allow the arrestee to consult a lawyer.

S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India (2022): Supreme Court, acknowledged concerns about misuse and the colonial legacy of Section 124A, ordered its suspension, effectively barring new prosecutions and staying pending cases. 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2024: Replaced the IPC.

• It removed the term “sedition” and adds Section 152 to targets incitement of secession, armed rebellion or subversion. 
• Punishment under 152 is life term or up to seven years (with fine), raising the minimum penalty (the old IPC allowed fine-only or 3 years).

 In August 2025, the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of Section 152 of the BNS.  

What are the main challenges and concern related to Section 152 of BNS?

Vagueness and Expansive Interpretation: Section 152 criminalizes "acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India" without clearly defining.

• Ambiguity grants law enforcement discretion, leading to arbitrary arrests and prosecutions. For example, criticizing a government policy or expressing sympathy for a particular ideology could be construed as "endangering unity"
• Case Study: The Wire and its editor face charges under Section 152 for reporting on alleged statements by India's defense attaché in Indonesia, raising alarm about the law's potential use against independent media. 

Lower threshold for offence: Section 152 includes the term "knowingly," which critics argue lowers the threshold for prosecution compared to the IPC's requirement of intent to provoke disaffection.

• Case Study: In Tejender Pal Singh vs State of Rajasthan (2024), the High Court's decision to quash the charges originated from a lack of clear evidence, indicate the concern with the "knowingly" provision.    

Negative Effect on freedom of expression: Section 152 is a cognizable and non-bailable offense, allowing arrests without warrant and leading to prolonged detention and harassment even without sufficient evidence.

• Legal framework deterring individuals, journalists, and activists from expressing dissenting views or engaging in discourse out of fear of arbitrary arrests and legal repercussions. 

Scope of misuse and absence of safeguards: NCRB data shows that between 2015 and 2020, out of 548 persons arrested under Section 124A, only 12 faced conviction. 

• Broader language and lower threshold of Section 152 amplified risk of arbitrary arrests and a larger number of cases filed without leading to conviction, highlighting misuse.
• Unlike Section 124A, which had the benefit of judicial interpretations, like the Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) ruling, which limited its misuse to inciting violence, Section 152 currently lacks such established safeguards. 

Heightened digital surveillance concerns: Section 152 includes acts committed through "electronic communication" and "financial means" within its scope.

• Raises concerns about potential overreach and misuse, allowing for wider investigation into personal digital activities and increasing the risk of arbitrary arrests based on online interactions.

Judiciary's role and potential for unconstitutionality: Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of Section 152, faces the challenge of balancing the state's interest in protecting national security with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

• Vagueness, lower threshold of intent, and potential for misuse of Section 152 could lead the Supreme Court to declare the provision unconstitutional, drawing parallels to its decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) which struck down  Section 66A of the IT Act for its vagueness and overreach.

Government's views for Section 152 of BNS

Shift in Focus: IPC Section 124A targeted acts against the "Government established by law in India," while BNS Section 152 shifts the focus to "actions endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India", protect democratic interests of Independent India.

Protection of Legitimate Dissent: Law does not punish criticism of government policies and actions, thereby upholding the democratic right to dissent.

• It focuses on actual threats to public order and violent actions, thus offering better protection for freedom of speech and democratic expression.

Higher Threshold of Applicability: Inclusion of the term "purposely or knowingly" in Section 152 signifies a higher threshold for prosecution compared to the old law.

Modernization of Law: Replacing colonial-era laws with new legislation reflecting contemporary societal concerns, including cybercrimes and digital fraud.

Protection against Real Threats: Government views Section 152 as a crucial tool to protect national security and combat serious threats, such as secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, and separatism.

Way Forward to Reforms Section 152  

Redefinition vs Repeal: Some Legal experts have advocated for repealing sedition laws, labeling them colonial origin unsuitable for a modern democracy, quoting instances where laws have been used against journalists, activists, and dissidents.

• Repealing the colonial-era sedition law has been a long-standing demand, with a proposal included in the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill of 2011.
• Proponents argue that the state needs a mechanism to address threats to its sovereignty and integrity, rise of radicalization and online propaganda.

Learn from international best practices: Other democracies have largely abandoned sedition laws, opting to address genuine threats through specific crimes like treason, terrorism, or hate speech. The United Kingdom repealed sedition laws in 2009.

• For India, the reform path may involve either narrowing the offense or repealing it and relying on other laws to address genuine incitement to violence. 

Procedural safeguards: Law Commission of India in its 279th Report has recommended procedural safeguards, such as requiring a preliminary inquiry by a police officer (not below the rank of inspector) before filing an FIR under sedition provisions, to prevent frivolous or politically motivated charges. 

Training and sensitization: Training programs for police officers and magistrates to ensure that they understand the constitutional limits of sedition laws and adhere to Supreme Court precedents.

Ensuring accountability: Implementing penalties for law enforcement officials who file baseless/politically motivated charges under sedition provisions is necessary to deter misuse and ensure accountability.

Enhanced transparency and data collection: Government should publish regular reports on the number of cases filed, arrests made, and convictions secured, for better monitoring of the law's application and potential misuse.

• NCRB data suggests a pattern of misuse rather than effective prosecution and stresses the need for greater transparency and accountability. 

Prioritizing constitutional principles: All legislative and judicial measures must adhere to the spirit of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).  

Conclusion

The issue surrounding sedition laws, evolving from the colonial-era Section 124A of the IPC to the BNS's Section 152, presents an ongoing challenge of balancing national security with safeguarding free speech and dissent, which demand careful legislative and judicial consideration to ensure democratic values are upheld. 

Source: THE HINDU