Sedition law: What is section 124A IPC?

Kanhaiya Kumar, Aseem Trivedi, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, and Owaisi are well-known for high-profile sedition charges imposed on them. Although Thomas Macaulay, who originally drafted the Indian Penal Code in 1837, included the law on sedition (Sec. 113 of the draft code), it was not inserted in the final draft of the code enacted in 1860; this omission was considered accidental. Later, in 1890, sedition was included under section 124A IPC through Special Act XVII. But, obviously, it was subjected to massive misuse. 

Like, under British India, the provision on Sedition became a tool for punishment against anyone, such as freedom fighters etc., who said or published anything against the British Government. After Independence, the law went through many stages through various cases, due to which new dimensions of sedition under Section 124A came into play.    This article discusses the meaning, comparison and landmark cases on sedition. So, let’s get started.

What is Sedition Law?

In general, inciting discontent or revolt against a government or the nation may be defined as sedition. It is any activity that encourages the instigation of dissatisfaction or insurrection against a government or the nation, especially when done orally or in writing.

Sedition is typically restricted to organising or promoting resistance to the government in a way that falls short of the more serious charges constituting treason, even if it may ultimately have the same result as treason. This might be done through writing or through speech.

For example: Waging war against the government

Provisions on Sedition: Sedition Law in India

Sedition under the Indian Law

In India, the offence of sedition is covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Section 124A. Under IPC, ‘Chapter VI’ deals with the Offences against the State. However the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 removes the offence of sedition. Instead, there is a new offence for acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

Sedition under IPC

Section 124A reads as,

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1.- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2.-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3.-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute an offence under this section.

Initially, this Section was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code of 1860, drafted by Thomas Macaulay. Later, in 1890, the section was introduced and was added in the Code. Also, the word “Her Majesty or” was omitted by another amendment Act in 1950 after Independence.

Landmark Cases on Sedition law: Sedition Law UPSC

1. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1898

Before independence, the law on sedition was used as a tool for suppressing the voice of India. Such a case is of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested twice for his publications; first, in 1897, when two British officers were killed as a result of other people being inspired by his remarks to propagate violence against the British, where the definition and application of Section 124A of the IPC were made for the first time and second, in 1908, where the authorities deemed his essay about the Maratha warrior Shivaji in his journal "Kesari" to be seditious. In this case, "Disaffection" was interpreted.

2. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

Romesh Thappar, the petitioner, was the editor, publisher, and printer of the Cross Roads periodical, which was printed and published in Bombay. According to Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, Section 9 (1-A), in the erstwhile State of Madras, publication, distribution, and dissemination of the periodical were all prohibited. The order, which argued that the state's reasoning for the restriction based on "public safety" was too broad, was reported in the Fort St. George Gazette.

• The Court decided that a statute limiting freedom of speech and expression cannot be said to fall under the purview of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution unless it is purely intended to undermine the security of the State or overthrow the State. 

• The Court also held Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, to be unconstitutional and void.

3. Vinod Dua v. Union of India, WP (CLR) no. 154 of 2020

On March 30, 2020, Mr. Vinod Dua, a Padmashri laureate and journalist by profession for many years, published a YouTube video on his HW News Network YouTube channel as a segment of his programme "The Vinod Dua Show." In this video, the petitioner, Mr. Dua, discussed the national lockdown and the serious health problems brought on by Covid-19 & that the government lacked adequate testing facilities. It was alleged that the petitioner was disseminating hostile and misleading information against the Prime Minister of India, which was provoking violence among the population and upsetting public peace.

• The Court held that, as long as a person does not incite people to commit acts of violence against the legally established government or cause public disorder, a citizen has the right to criticise the government's and its officials' actions. 

• It is only when the words or expressions have the pernicious tendency or intention of causing public disorder or disturbing law and order that Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be invoked.

4. Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overturned all of the aforementioned High Court rulings in this case. Insofar as it seeks to encourage violence, sedition is a legitimate exception to the freedom of speech rule, the court ruled. Kedar Nath belonged to the Bihar Forward Communist Party. As a result of his speech at Barauni in 1953, he was accused of sedition. He had charged that the corrupt Congress administration had targeted Vinobha Bhave's initiatives to transfer land. Justice Sinha defined the parameters for using sedition. 

• He said any criticism of the administration, even when expressed in “strong language, " is not considered sedition until it results in "public disruption by acts of violence. 

• Hence, this judgment predicated the applicability of sedition on the likelihood of causing violence.

• This judgment not only overturned all the previous judgments but also became a landmark judgment validating the provision of Section 124A of IPC. This judgment became a landmark while dealing with the sedition provisions.

Current status of sedition law in India

S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022

The legislation on sedition remained to exist, and charges were filed under Section 124A until recently despite these worries and widespread resistance to its abuse. However, Section 124A on sedition has been suspended as a result of the Union of India's evidence in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 and the order therein.

• The Court in the case, held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. 

• Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. 

• The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India - We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.

Recommendations by Law Commission

In April 2023, the 22nd Law Commission of India, in its 279th Report, gave the considered view that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) needs to be retained, but with certain amendments. The following are the major recommendations of the Commission:

• Higher Punishment: The crime of sedition is currently punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 3 years. The 279th Report recommends imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years.
• Wider Scope: According to the recommendations of the Commission, even a “tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder” will constitute sedition, thereby widening the scope of sedition.
• Procedural safeguards to prevent misuse: The Commission recommended introduction of procedural safeguards, like, an inquiry by the police before filing an FIR under Section 124A and the permission of State or Central Government after submitting the inquiry report to file the FIR.

Conclusion 

Our nation has a highly controversial rule against sedition, and the government must strike a balance between sedition and freedom of speech and expression since the ability to criticise the government is crucial to a strong democracy freely. The Court affirms the validity of Section 124A, although it only applies to conduct that include violence or the threat of violence. It is the ideal opportunity to innovate or examine the section because the authorities are abusing it.