Contemporary Debate on Sedition
- On May 21, 2025, a three-judge SC Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant clarified that courts may proceed with trials under Section 124A IPC if the accused raises no objection.
- This partially revived the paused colonial-era sedition provision for consenting accused persons.
- The challenge to constitutionality of Section 124A remains pending in the Supreme Court in the Vombatkere case.
- Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), considered Section 124A’s successor, is also under challenge for its chilling effect on free speech.
About Sedition Law
- Section 124A IPC was introduced by the British in 1890 to suppress political dissent in colonial India.
- It made it an offence to bring hatred or contempt or excite disaffection towards the government established by law.
- Punishment ranged from imprisonment for life to three years or fine depending on the severity of the offence.
- The law was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak to suppress the freedom movement.
- First PM Jawaharlal Nehru described Section 124A as “highly objectionable and obnoxious” in Parliament in 1951.
- The offence of sedition traces its origin to the Statute of Westminster, 1275, when the King held Divine right.
Constitutional and Legal Issues Involved
- Section 124A was challenged as violating freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The May 21 clarification creates visible disparity — consenting accused face trial while others wait in indefinite limbo.
- Allowing trials under a provision whose constitutionality is itself undecided raises serious due process concerns.
- Curtailment of free speech under Section 124A also affects the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Fundamental rights do not reside in isolated silos — curtailment of one right necessarily affects others.
Key Supreme Court Judgments
- Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962): Upheld Section 124A but narrowed its scope — sedition applies only where speech involves incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder.
- Mere criticism of the government, however strong, is not sedition unless it has a violent tendency.
- S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India (2022): SC ordered all ongoing and future proceedings under Section 124A to be kept in abeyance pending constitutional review.
- Kamran vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025): SC clarified that proceedings may resume for consenting accused persons only.
Concerns and Implications
- Accused are left between two difficult choices — consent to trial under an undecided law or endure indefinite limbo.
- Practical problems arise when co-accused take different positions on consenting to trial in the same case.
- The Attorney General himself in 2022 cited glaring instances of misuse including booking an MP for threatening to recite the Hanuman Chalisa.
- The May 21 clarification was passed without hearing petitioners in the connected Vombatkere group of matters.
- Prolonged SC delay in deciding the Vombatkere petitions has left vulnerable citizens in constitutional uncertainty.
Way Forward
- The Supreme Court must urgently decide the Vombatkere petitions rather than delivering stopgap clarifications.
- The burden must lie on the State to establish that a rights-limiting sedition provision is necessary in a democracy.
- Section 152 of the BNS must also be clearly defined to eliminate ambiguity and prevent misuse against citizens.
- Courts must strictly follow the Kedar Nath Singh threshold requiring actual incitement to violence before applying sedition.
- India must align its sedition jurisprudence with post-Kedar Nath precedents recognising the interconnected nature of fundamental rights.