• The Constitutional validity of the Sedition law i.e. Section 124A of the IPC has been challenged in the Supreme Court. During the proceedings the CJI N V Ramana remarked that the colonial era law was used to silence even Mahatama Gandhi and Tilak.

• Sedition is a British era law that was reintroduced in the IPC in 1870 to deal with remnants of the Wahabi movement.
• It was mainly used against Indian freedom fighters. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted and sentenced under the Sedition law.
• Gandhiji, Azad, V D Savarkar and several other were tried under the same law.

• In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sedition is a crime under section 124A. It is non-bailable offence.
• According to Section 124A, a person can face imprisonment for up to three years and a life sentence with fines in addition.
• According to Section 124A IPC, A person is committing sedition if they create hatred or disaffection towards the government established by law in India by either words, either spoken or written, either through signs or by visible representation, and/or attempts to do so.
• 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 obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense 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 offense under this section.

• Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962):
• According to the opinion, sedition is constitutional, but it can only be practiced in cases involving chaos, incitement to violence, disturbance of law and order, or incitement to disorder.
• It distinguished these from “very strong speech” or the use of “vigorous words” strongly critical of the government. 

• Alavi Vs State of Kerala:
  • Sloganeering, criticizing of Parliament or the judicial set-up did not amount to sedition.
• Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995):
  • A mere sloganeering that elicited no response from the public would not be considered sedition by the SC.
    • Indra Das v. State of Assam:
  • Only speech that amounts to “incitement to imminent lawless action” can be criminalized.

• Security and Public Order
  • Sedition helps combating anti-national, terrorist or secessionist elements.
  • Sedition can prevent practices that result in disturbance in the state or to lead to civil war which contempt the sovereign and promotes public disorder.
  • It restricts the speech that could threaten the unity, integrity and the National Security.
• It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means.

• Colonial Legacy:
  • Sedition is a relic of colonial legacy and unsuited in a democracy.
  • British had introduced sedition to oppress Indians and the freedom struggle.
  • The British have themselves abolished the law in their country. There is no reason, why should not India abolish this section.
• Anti-democratic:
  • Dissent and criticism of the government are the essence of a vibrant democracy.

They should not be constructed as sedition.

• Right to question, criticize and change rulers is very fundamental to the idea of democracy.
• The law can be misused as a tool to suppress the political dissent.
• It can have a chilling effect on free speech in a democracy.
• Subjectivity:
  • The terms like 'disaffection' in Section 124A are vague and subject to different interpretation to the whims and fancies of those in power.
  • Mahatma Gandhi, who was charged with sedition, famously said the law was "designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen".
• Constituent Assembly
  • Constituent Assembly had decided to exclude it from the Constitution as it would imperil freedom of speech.
• SC guidelines not followed
  • Although the SC has declared Sedition constitutional, it has also given the directions regarding when it can be invoked.
  • But often these directions are not followed resulting in letter and spirit.

• Maintaining Balance:
  • It is essential to protect both national integrity and the right to free speech and expression.
• Avoiding Misuse:
  • The expression or thought that do not conform with the policy of the government of the day should not be considered as sedition.
  • The Sedition law must not be misused to suppress the dissent and free speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
• Judicial Scrutiny:
  • Every restriction on free speech and expression must be carefully scrutinised to avoid unwarranted restrictions.
• Removing the Subjective nature of the Law:
  • Since the law is very vague and broad, the grey area needs to be corrected by constructive debates including all the stakeholders.
  • Following Supreme Court orders in various cases about Sedition would surely help to avoid any ambiguity.