INTRODUCTION
Sedition law in India- section 124A of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) is a colonial-era provision that criminalizes “exciting disaffection” towards the Government. Originally introduced in 1870 with the intention of stifling anti-British sentiment, Section 124A surprisingly continues to be enforced in India even decades after achieving independence. The law’s persistence, frequent invocation, and documented misuse against journalists, activists, and dissenting citizens have made it one of the most contested provisions in contemporary Indian constitutional discourse. Reforming or repealing sedition is not merely a legal technicality: it is a democratic imperative to protect free expression, ensure proportional criminal justice, and rebuild public trust in the rule of law.
WHAT SECTION 124A SAYS AND ITS COLONIAL ORIGINS
Section 124A of the IPC makes it an offence to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection against, the Government established by law- punishable with imprisonment which may extend to life or with a fine, or both. The text and spirit of the provision trace back to British Indian statutes and Macaulay-era drafting intended to suppress anti-colonial political activity.[1]. The law’s language, broad, vague, and subjective, lends itself to expansive and discretionary enforcement.[2].
JUDICIAL HISTORY: SURVIVAL WITH A NARROW GLOSS
The most important constitutional treatment of sedition in independent India is the Supreme Court’s decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)[3]. The court upheld the constitutional validity of section 124A but significantly restricted its scope: speech attracting sedition must involve an intention or tendency to cause violence or public disorder. Mere criticism of government policies, even if strongly worded, cannot be penalised as sedition[4]. In other words, the court attempted a judicial balancing act-recognising state interest in public order yet protecting robust, critical speech.
Yet in practice, the constitutional gloss has proved insufficient to prevent widespread arrests under section 124A. The gap between the Supreme Court’s limiting tests and ground-level policing has allowed the law to be repeatedly used against critics whose speech did not, in reality, incite violence.[5].
EMPIRICAL PICTURE: HOW SEDITION IS USED
Official and media-compiled data show sedition remains an actively used provision. Between 2015 and 2020, 3566 sedition cases were registered, and 548 persons were arrested; convictions were rare (12 convictions in 70 cases across that period), highlighting a prosecution pattern that frequently ends without conviction but imposes severe costs on those accused.[6]. NCRB data and reporting also show that sedition cases are regionally concentrated and sometimes spike after politically charged events[7].
For a functioning democracy, such collateral impact on dissenters, artists, journalists, and students is deeply problematic.
PROBLEMS WITH SECTION 124A (LEGAL AND PRACTICAL)
- Vagueness and overbreadth
The phrase “exciting disaffection” is imprecise. Without precise statutory elements(for example, requiring an intention to incite imminent violence, or specifying a threshold of likelihood of public disorder), enforcement becomes discretionary and politically vulnerable.[8].
- Chilling of legitimate critique
The social and political cost of being booked under sedition chills legitimate criticism. Journalists, academics, activists, and ordinary citizens may self-censor to avoid the risk of police action.[9].
- Disproportionate criminalization
Sedition is a serious, non-bailable offence with an archaic maximum punishment. Many speech-related harms can be regulated by proportionate civil remedies or narrowly-tailored criminal offences. Examples include incitement to violence, terrorism, etc., making sedition redundant and excessive.[10]
- Misuse as a tool of political control
Reports by right organisations and several high-profile cases show that sedition is sometimes invoked to punish political opponents or silence embarrassing reporting rather than to prosecute genuine threats to state security.[11].
THE LAW COMMISSION’S RECENT STANCE AND THE POLICY DEBATE
A major recent institutional voice- the 279th report of the Law Commission of India(April 2023)- examined “usage of the law of sedition” and recommended retaining a revised sedition provision, while proposing clarifications and stricter thresholds for application[12]. The report suggested using the law only where expression threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order in a specific and imminent fashion, and considered updating penal language and penalties[13].
The Law Commission’s recommendation prompted intense debate. Critics argued that the commission failed to recommend abolition and instead proposed a tightened version that could still be misused; civil society and human rights groups have called for repeal or, at a minimum, an explicit statutory intent requirement and procedural safeguards Supporters of retention argue that some form of law is needed to tackle genuinely seditious conduct and that other statutes may not be adequate substitutes.
INTERNATIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVES
International human rights bodies and NGOs have repeatedly cautioned against sedition laws that criminalise peaceful expression. The UN special rapporteurs and human rights organizations have criticised broad sedition statutes for violating the right to freedom of expression and called for repeal or reform consistent with international law[14]. Human Rights Watch and others have documented patterns where speech-suppressive laws are used to chill dissent and punish minorities. Comparative practices show many democracies have repealed colonial sedition laws and regulate genuinely dangerous speech through narrowly framed offences or counter-terrorism statutes with clear mens rea and evidence threshold.
A PRINCIPAL WAY FORWARD: REFORM OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Reform should aim to protect democratic dissent while ensuring that genuine threats to state security can be addressed. The following roadmap balances those priorities.
- Repeal Section 124A or substantially re-draft it.
The clearest reform is the repeal of section 124A and replacement with narrowly defined offences that meet constitutional and international freedom of expression standards.[15]
In the newly introduced Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), the term “sedition” has been repealed, and a new provision under section 152 of BNS has been introduced. However, section 152 of BNS is currently challenged in the Supreme Court as petitioners argue it revives and rebrands sedition under a new name.
Thus, Parliament should substantially re-draft the offence to include:
An explicit mens rea element, requirement of imminence and proximate causation, and a clear geographical and temporal nexus(specifying how the speech would foreseeably cause public disorder in a specific time or place).
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
Introduce procedural safeguards to prevent misuse:
- Mandatory prior sanction or judicial review before non-bailable arrests in speech cases.
- Fast-track judicial review of sedition charges to prevent prolonged chilling of expression.
- Disclosure obligations for police(requiring details before invoking charges of sedition).
ALTERNATE LEGAL REFORMS
Encourage use of existing targeted offences for genuinely dangerous conduct; examples include incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, or specific terrorism provisions, rather than invoking sedition for rhetorical political criticism.
ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Some argue that abolishing sedition would remove a legal tool against threats to sovereignty and national security. Yet retention without significant narrowing risks weaponisation against dissent. Practical law-law-enforcement needs can be met by well-crafted offences with clear mens rea and strict evidentiary thresholds. Moreover, rare but grave harms (e.g., Violent attempts to overthrow the state) can be prosecuted under national security provisions designed with due procedural safeguards.
CONCLUSION
Sedition law, as practiced, poses a structural threat to India’s democratic health; it chills dissent, enables arbitrary enforcement, and corrodes civil liberties. The Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation in Kedar Nath was an important constitutional check, but judicial limitations alone cannot prevent misuse.
Meaningful reform, repeal, or comprehensive redrafting coupled with procedural safeguards and stronger oversight is essential. For a mature democracy, the true measure of resilience is not how well the law suppresses dissent, but how well it protects peaceful dissent while proportionately dealing with real threats to public order and security.
Author(s) Name: Anshuman Singh (Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad)
References:
[1] Thomas Babington Macaulay, Draft of the Indian Penal Code(1837) in the works of Lord Macaulay, vol 7
(Longman 1866)
[2] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 124A.
[3] Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Human Rights Watch, Stifling Dissent: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India (24 May 2016) https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/25/stifling-dissent/criminalization-peaceful-expression-india accessed 23 November 2025.
[6] Rashid, “Of 548 held, just 12 in 7 cases convicted,” Times of India (10 May 2022) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/of-548-held-just-12-in-7-cases-convicted/articleshow/91451710.cms accessed 23 November 2025; National Crime Records Bureau statistics summarized in reporting (2015–2020).
[7] National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data as discussed in news reporting; see NCRB data on sedition cases (compiled summaries) https://ncrb.gov.in/ accessed 23 November 2025.
[8] Law Commission of India, Usage of the Law of Sedition, Report No 279 (17 April 2023)
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2023/06/2023060150.pdf accessed 23 November 2025.
[9] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur (documents) https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/31/55/Add.1 accessed 23 November 2025.
[10] he Law of ‘Sedition’ in India: A Looming Threat to Democracy (scholarly reviews of the 279th Report).
[11] Human Rights Watch (n 5); and multiple media-documented case studies where sedition charges were used against journalists and activists
[12] Law Commission of India, Usage of the Law of Sedition, Report No 279 (17 April 2023) https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2023/06/2023060150.pdf accessed 23 November 2025.
[13] Ibid.
[14] UN Human rights council, Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Addendum (on country situations relating to India) https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/31/55/Add.1 accessed 23 November 2025.
[15] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 124A.
