The Dangers of India's Sedition Law and How It's Changing.
This Article is written by :- MS. Pragati, 4th year B.A LL.B.(Hons.) – Chaudhary Mahadev Prasad Degree College, Prayagraj
INTRODUCTIONImagine living in a country where speaking your mind could land you in jail. A place where disagreeing with the government, even peacefully, might be called a crime against the nation. For a long time, this was a real fear in India, thanks to a controversial law known as sedition, found in Section 124A of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).
This law is a leftover from a different era – a time when India was ruled by the British, who used it as a powerful weapon to crush any signs of rebellion or disagreement from Indian people fighting for their freedom.
In a country like India, which is the world's largest democracy and proudly stands for freedom of speech, the continued existence and use of such a harsh law has always been a major point of debate. It makes people wonder if this old law truly fits with the spirit of a modern, free nation.
Recently, India’s legal system saw a huge change. The government introduced new laws under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which is set to replace the old IPC. This new set of laws brings significant, though widely discussed, changes to how India deals with actions that are seen as going against the country. This essay will dive deep into the serious dangers of the old Section 124A of the IPC. We will look at how it was misused throughout history and how it created a chilling effect, making people afraid to express their true thoughts. After that, we will carefully examine the key differences and potential new problems with its replacement, Section 152 of the BNS. Our goal is to understand if this new law truly moves India towards a more democratic future, or if it simply puts an old problem in a new package.
The Old Sedition Law (IPC Section 124A): A Dangerous Relics Section 124A,IPC,1860, Sedition. 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.
Section 124A of the IPC was added in 1870. It stated that if anyone, using words (spoken or written), signs, pictures, or any other means, tried to create "hatred or contempt" or"disloyalty" towards the government of India, they would be committing sedition. The law also clarified that simply disapproving of government actions, without stirring up hatred or contempt, was not an offense.
The dangers of this broad and unclear law were many:
1. It Silenced Free Speech (The "Chilling Effect"): The biggest problem with Section 124A was its "chilling effect" on legitimate criticism and disagreement. People became afraid of being charged with sedition, even for mild criticism of government policies, which often led them to censor themselves. This fear stifled healthy public discussion, which is vital for any democracy to work well. Mahatma Gandhi famously called Section 124A the "prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen." It's a sad irony that Indian leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Jawaharlal Nehru, who fought for India's freedom, were themselves charged under this very law by their colonial rulers.
2. Vague and Open to Abuse: Terms like "hatred," "contempt," and "disloyalty" are very subjective and can be understood in many different ways. What one person considers fair criticism, another might see as seditious. This lack of clarity gave immense power to the authorities to decide what counted as sedition, often leading to unfair and politically motivated charges. Without clear rules about what makes an act seditious, the law could easily be misused to silence people who held different opinions.
3. Low Conviction Rates, High Harassment: Despite many arrests, the number of people actually convicted under Section 124A was consistently very low. This suggests that the main goal of using this law was often not to secure a conviction, but to harass, scare, and imprison critics, effectively removing them from public life and draining their resources through long and expensive legal battles. In many cases, the legal process itself became the punishment.
4. Misused Against Critics: In recent times, Section 124A was frequently used against journalists reporting on sensitive issues, activists protesting government decisions, and even academics expressing critical views. This drew strong criticism from national and international human rights organizations, highlighting a worrying trend of shrinking democratic freedoms.
5. A Colonial Relic in a Modern Democracy: The very origin of Section 124A as a tool for colonial oppression makes its continued existence in an independent, democratic India seem out of place. India's independence was won by fighting for basic freedoms, including the right to express disagreement with those in power. Keeping a law designed to suppress those very freedoms goes against the core principles of the Indian republic.
6. Court Rulings Didn't Fully Solve the Problem: In a landmark case called Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court said that Section 124A was constitutionally valid, but it significantly limited its scope.The Court ruled that an act could only be considered seditious if it involved an "incitement to violence" or had a"tendency to create public disorder." While this judicial interpretation offered some protection, the unclear wording of the original law often allowed police to work around these limitations in practice, leading to continued misuse. In a notable development in May 2022, the Supreme Court temporarily paused the use of Section 124A and asked the government to re-examine the law, acknowledging the ongoing concerns about its misuse. This meant no new cases could be filed under the old sedition law while the review was ongoing.
The New Law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - BNS) and the Proposed Change: A New Beginning or Just the Same Problems with a New Name?
Act Endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Section 152,BNS,2023 . Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separation activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In a major legal shift, the Indian government passed the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2023, which is intended to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A key part of this reform is the removal of Section 124A (Sedition) and its replacement with a new provision, Section 152 of the BNS, titled "Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India." While the government has stated that this change aims to remove colonial elements from the law and get rid of the "sedition" label, a closer look reveals both positive changes and potential new dangers.
Key Differences Between IPC Section 124A and BNS Section 152:
1. Name and Focus
• IPC 124A: Directly used the word "sedition" and focused on creating "disloyalty towards the Government." The main target of the offense was the "government" of the day.
• BNS 152: No longer uses the word "sedition." Instead, it shifts the focus from "disloyalty towards the Government" to actions that threaten the "sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India." This is a big conceptual shift, moving from protecting the current government to protecting the nation itself.
2. What Actions Are Forbidden
• IPC 124A: Criminalized acts that brought "hatred or contempt, or excited disloyalty." Its broad wording meant it could apply to many types of critical expressions.
• BNS 152: Specifies a more defined set of actions:
• "Excites or attempts to excite, secession (breaking away from the country) or armed rebellion or harmful activities"
▪ "Encourage feelings of separatist activities"
▪ "Endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India".
While it tries to be more specific, the inclusion of terms like "harmful activities" and "separatist activities" still carries some vagueness.
3. Intent (Mens Rea - The Guilty Mind)
• IPC 124A: The existence of the act itself was often enough, and the intent was often assumed. Even though court rulings (like Kedarnath Singh) introduced the need for incitement to violence, the actual law didn't clearly demand a high level of intent.
• BNS 152: Clearly states that the person must act "purposely or knowingly" when using words, written or spoken, to excite or attempt to excite. This clear inclusion of "purposely or knowingly" is a welcome change, as it potentially raises the bar for conviction and could help reduce unfair arrests.
4. Ways the Crime Can Be Committed
• IPC 124A: Covered words (spoken or written), signs, visible pictures, or "otherwise."
• BNS 152: Keeps these methods but specifically adds "electronic communication" and "use of financial means." This update reflects how crimes are committed in the digital age and how illegal activities are funded.
5. Punishment
• IPC 124A: Could lead to imprisonment for life with a fine, or imprisonment up to three years with a fine,or just a fine.
• BNS 152: Can lead to imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to seven years, and a fine. The maximum punishment remains severe, showing how seriously these offenses are viewed.
Potential Dangers and Criticisms of BNS Section 152.
Even though BNS Section 152 addresses some of the problems with IPC Section 124A, it also has its own concerns:
1. The Core Problem Remains: Critics argue that despite the name change, the fundamental idea of sedition –punishing expressions that challenge the state – largely stays the same. The focus shifts from the "Government" to the "State," but the power to suppress disagreement by labelling it a threat to national unity continues to exist.
2. Vague Terms like "Subversive Activities" and "Separatist Activities": The BNS doesn't clearly define "subversive activities" and "separatist activities." This lack of precise definition could potentially be used to target legitimate political discussions, protests, or demands for regional rights, especially if they are seen as challenging the established order.
3. "Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity": While this phrase sounds noble, if it's interpreted too broadly, it could become a new catch-all for suppressing various forms of dissent. The worry is that any strong criticism that can be loosely linked to "endangering" these abstract concepts might be criminalized, even if it doesn't involve encouraging violence or public disorder.
4. Missing Clear Judicial Safeguards in the Law: The old court rulings on IPC 124A, especially the Kedarnath Singh case, had set a high standard requiring incitement to violence. While the BNS adds "purposely or knowingly,"it doesn't explicitly put the "incitement to violence" rule into the law itself. This means that future court interpretations will be very important in deciding whether the new law provides enough protection against misuse,or if it simply shifts the problematic aspects under a new label. Without clear legal safeguards, the risk of unfair enforcement remains.
5. Potential for More Misuse: Because the new law covers a wider range of actions against "the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India," combined with its vague language, it could potentially lead to more misuse. The argument is that while the old law (IPC 124A) focused on "disloyalty towards the government," BNS 152 expands to "the very idea of India itself," potentially making any strong criticism of national policies vulnerable to being seen as endangering unity.
Conclusion:-
The journey of sedition law in India, from its colonial origins to its new form in the BNS, shows a continuous struggle to balance national security with fundamental freedoms. Section 124A of the IPC, with its vague language and history of misuse, clearly harmed free speech and acted as a strong deterrent to legitimate disagreement in a democracy. Its removal from the legal books, at least by name, is a symbolic victory for advocates of free speech.
However, the shift to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires careful observation. While moving the focus from "disloyalty towards the Government" to "acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India" and clearly stating the need for intent are positive steps, the continued presence of unclear terms like "subversive activities" and the absence of clear legal safeguards like "incitement to violence" raise valid concerns. The true test of BNS Section 152's democratic spirit will depend on how it is interpreted and applied by the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. For a truly independent and democratic India, any law that limits expression must be very specific, applied only in the most extreme cases, and only when there is a clear and immediate danger of encouraging violence or a direct threat to the nation's integrity. Otherwise, the dangers of a colonial-era law will simply be repackaged under a new name, continuing to cast a long shadow over the fundamental right to free expression, which is the cornerstone of Indian democracy.
References:-
1. MANUPATRA, https://docs.manupatra.in (last visited Aug 2,2025).
2. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NOVEL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
https://www.ijnrd.org (last visited Jul 30,2025).
3. BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA.Sec.152,2023.
4. INDIAN PENAL CODE. Sec. 124 A ,1860.
5. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, https://www.epw.in (last visited Jul 28,2025).
Hashtags:-
#RepealSeditionIndia
#FreeSpeechMatters
#SeditionLawDebate
#DemocracyUnderThreat
#LegalReformIndia
Post a Comment