Introduction: The Paradox of Democracy and Dissent
The law of sedition sits at the volatile crossroads of a citizen’s right to free speech and the state’s demand for security. For laymen and legal minds alike, the core question is simple: Can a democracy jail its citizens for fiercely criticising the government? Historically housed under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), this colonial-era law was recently suspended by the Supreme Court of India and supposedly repealed by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). However, a closer technical examination reveals a complex reality. Has the sedition law truly died, or has it merely changed its shape?
Free Speech Versus State Security
The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Yet, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the government to impose “reasonable restrictions” for specific reasons, including the “security of the State” and “public order”. Notably, the framers of the Constitution intentionally removed the word “sedition” from the final document.It is clear that, because sedition is not explicitly mentioned in Article 19(2), restrictions are valid only if they relate directly to disrupting public order. Before its repeal, Section 124A of the IPC punished anyone who “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt” the government, with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. This wording was dangerously broad and inherently subjective.
Kedar Nath Singh Case and Doctrinal Ambiguity
The Supreme Court of India addressed this constitutional clash in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955). It ruled that criticizing the government is not sedition and that the law is valid only when speech has the tendency to cause state disruption or public disorder. However, this ruling created doctrinal ambiguity due to the vague term “tendency,” enabling police to arrest individuals for speech that might incite riots, even without actual violence. The law became a tool of harassment, turning legal procedures into punishments. Government data shows over 10,900 sedition charges from 2010 to 2020, often with low conviction rates.
In SanskarMarathe v. State of Maharashtra (2015 Cri LJ 3561), the Bombay High Court protected a cartoonist, ruling that strong condemnation of the state without inciting violence is not sedition. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (AIR 2021 SC 3231), the Supreme Court quashed charges against a journalist, reaffirming citizens’ right to criticize administrative measures. In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1785), the Court held that casual anti-national slogans, without provoking violence, do not constitute sedition.
Interim Suspension and Constitutional Morality
The breaking point was reached in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022 7 SCC 120).A colonial law used to suppress freedom fighters violates “constitutional morality”, a concept referring to deep respect for the core democratic values and substantive justice embedded in the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed that the law was outdated and ordered a historic interim suspension, placing Section 124A in abeyance, halting all pending trials, and stopping all new arrests. This sparked the great repeal debate: should the law be completely scrapped, or did the state still need a mechanism to protect its sovereignty?
The Repeal Debate: Section 124A IPC to Section 152 BNS
On July 1, 2024, the government replaced the IPC with the BNS. While the controversial word “sedition” was dropped, the essence of the crime was reborn as Section 152 of the BNS, titled “Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.
| Legal Feature | Section 124A IPC (Repealed) | Section 152 BNS (Active) |
| Core Offence | Bringing hatred toward the “Government established by law” | Endangering the “sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” |
| Methods Used | Words, signs, visible representation | Adds “electronic communication” and “financial mean” |
| Punishment | Life imprisonment, or up to 3 years | Life imprisonment, or up to 7 years |
| Ambiguous Terms | “Disaffection”, “Hatred”, “Contempt” | “Subversive activities”, “Separatist activities” |
Conclusion: The Final Assessment
In the concluding assessment of this analysis, the definitive personal opinion maintained here is that sedition is far from a dead law; it is a dormant, highly upgraded weapon. While dropping the word “sedition” was a necessary nod to constitutional morality, Section 152 of the BNS has broadened the state’s reach. By increasing the alternate punishment from three to seven years and including vague terms like “subversive activities” without strictly requiring actual violenceas the Kedar Nath ruling mandated, the new law remains dangerous. Until the constitutional courts clarify these new terms and explicitly tie them to public disorder, the sword of sedition will simply rest in a newly forged scabbard, sharper and waiting to be drawn.
Article by: Ruturraj Jadhav | Constitutional Law Enthusiast