ABSTRACT:
This paper examines the significant tension between the fundamental right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and the continued application and evolution of sedition laws in India. Originally enacted in 1870 during the British colonial era to suppress nationalist movements, the sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC) remained on the statute books after India’s independence despite concerns about its relevance in a democratic state. While the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) attempted to restrict its application to only include acts inciting violence or public disorder, the law has frequently been misused.
The paper argues that sedition laws, including the newly introduced Section 147 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), continue to pose a threat to free expression due to their vague wording, which allows for arbitrary and disproportionate application. This misuse creates a significant “chilling effect,” discouraging citizens, journalists, and activists from expressing critical views or engaging in dissent for fear of legal repercussions, undermining democratic discourse and participation. Empirical evidence, such as NCRB data showing a high number of sedition cases but extremely low conviction rates, supports the claim that these laws are often used for harassment rather than legitimate prosecution.
While the government justifies these provisions as necessary for national security against threats like secession and terrorism, critics contend that existing laws like the UAPA and NSA already address these concerns, making sedition laws redundant and primarily tools for stifling legitimate criticism. The Indian judiciary has increasingly acknowledged these issues, with the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of Section 124A and placing it on hold, and High Courts criticising the arbitrary use of sedition and related national security laws against dissent. The paper concludes by advocating for the repeal or significant amendment of sedition laws to align with international standards and constitutional values, coupled with procedural safeguards and a societal shift towards embracing dissent as essential for a healthy democracy.
KEYWORDS: Section 124 A IPC 1860, Section 147 BNS 2023, Sedition Laws, Free Speech , Article 19.
INTRODUCTION:
The principle of free speech forms the cornerstone of any democratic society, serving as a vital tool for public discourse, dissent, and the protection of individual liberty. In India, this fundamental right is enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, its scope has frequently come into conflict with colonial-era sedition laws, particularly Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).[1] Introduced in 1870 by the British colonial regime, the sedition law was primarily used to suppress nationalist leaders and freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who challenged the legitimacy of British rule. Despite India’s independence and the adoption of a Constitution that prioritizes civil liberties, the sedition law remained intact, raising significant concerns about its relevance in a democratic and sovereign republic.[2]
In recent years, the sedition law has resurfaced at the center of legal and political debates, especially amid increasing instances of its invocation against journalists, students, activists, and dissenting citizens. Proponents argue that such laws are necessary to protect national security and public order, particularly in the face of terrorism, secessionist movements, and online disinformation. However, critics assert that the vague and broad phrasing of sedition provisions enables state authorities to misuse them, leading to unjustified curtailment of free expression.
This paper argues that sedition laws, particularly in their current or repackaged form under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), have a chilling effect on free speech in India. The arbitrary and disproportionate application of these laws undermines democratic values by stifling dissent and punishing criticism of the state. Through an analysis of legal developments, judicial trends, and case studies, this paper explores the tension between safeguarding national security and preserving the constitutional right to free speech, advocating for urgent reform or repeal of outdated sedition provisions.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY :
This research employs a multi-faceted methodology combining doctrinal, analytical, and empirical approaches to examine the tension between free speech and national security in India. It traces the historical evolution of sedition laws from colonial times and critically analyses the current legal framework, including the Constitution, as well as related statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA). Judicial decisions and constitutional developments are assessed to understand shifting legal interpretations. Additionally, empirical data, including National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics, is used to evaluate the practical impact of these laws. This comprehensive approach ensures a balanced understanding of legal, constitutional, and societal dimensions of the issue. This methodology thus provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the complex tension between free speech and national security in India.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE :
I. Disha Ravi and the ‘Toolkit’ Case[3]
One of the most high-profile cases illustrating the chilling effect was the arrest of Disha Ravi, a 22-year-old climate activist, in February 2021. She was accused of sedition and criminal conspiracy for sharing a “toolkit” related to the farmers’ protests against three controversial agricultural laws. The toolkit, a standard method of digital campaigning used globally, contained information on how to support the protests.
Her arrest was widely condemned as an overreach and a direct attack on youth activism and free speech. The Delhi High Court later granted her bail, observing that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to link her actions to incitement of violence or threat to national security. The case revealed how loosely interpreted sedition laws could be used to stifle peaceful expression and intimidate young activists.
II. Dr. Kafeel Khan and Preventive Detention[4]
Another example is that of Dr. Kafeel Khan, a paediatrician who was arrested in 2020 under the National Security Act (NSA) for delivering a speech during an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest at Aligarh Muslim University. He was accused of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public order. However, the Allahabad High Court, in a strong rebuke to the state government, ordered his release, ruling that the speech in question did not promote hatred or violence and was instead a call for national unity.
The court observed that “a complete reading of the speech prima facie does not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence.” Dr. Khan’s prolonged detention without trial and subsequent exoneration highlighted the arbitrary application of preventive detention laws and their grave implications for civil liberties.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA :
The origins of sedition laws in India lie in the colonial project of suppressing political dissent.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced in 1870 by the British colonial
government under the Viceroyalty of Lord Mayo. The provision criminalized any speech or expression that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection” towards the government established by law. The term “disaffection” was deliberately left vague, giving sweeping powers to the colonial administration to clamp down on nationalist activities and public criticism. It was widely used against key figures of the Indian independence movement, including Mahatma Gandhi, who described the law as “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
After independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution placed a strong emphasis on civil liberties, including the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). However, Section 124A continued to exist in the statute books. The constitutional validity of this provision was challenged in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)[5]. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but introduced crucial safeguards. The Court ruled that the provision could only be invoked when speech or expression incites violence or public disorder. Mere criticism of the government, however harsh or unpalatable, could not be grounds for sedition. This judgment was an attempt to harmonize colonial-era laws with the democratic spirit of the Constitution.
Despite the limitations imposed by Kedar Nath Singh, the application of sedition laws in India continued to raise concerns due to their misuse against journalists, students, political opponents, and civil society members. As India transitioned into the 21st century, the debate around the relevance and misuse of sedition laws intensified. Public interest litigations and legal scholars increasingly called for the repeal or re-examination of Section 124A in light of its chilling effect on free speech.
In 2023, the Indian Parliament enacted the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), intended to replace the colonial Indian Penal Code. Section 124A was formally omitted in the BNS[6], and a new provision, Section 147, was introduced. Section 147 criminalizes acts that “endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” and promotes secession or armed rebellion. Though the language of Section 147 appears to be more aligned with national security concerns, critics argue that it is a rebranded version of the sedition law. The Rajasthan High Court, while granting bail in a case under Section 147, observed that the new provision “closely resembles
the repealed Section 124A” and cautioned against its use to suppress dissent or legitimate criticism of government policies.
Thus, the historical evolution of sedition law in India reflects a pattern of continuity rather than reform. Despite judicial attempts to narrow its scope and recent legislative changes, the core concern remains unchanged — the potential misuse of broad and ambiguous legal provisions to curb constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING FREE SPEECH AND NATIONAL SECURITY :
India’s legal framework reflects a delicate balancing act between safeguarding free speech and ensuring national security. The Constitution of India, while guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech and expression, also permits the imposition of reasonable restrictions under specific circumstances. In practice, however, this balance is often disrupted by expansive laws related to sedition and national security that are frequently invoked to suppress dissent and public criticism.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS :
The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This fundamental right allows citizens to express their opinions freely, through speech, writing, and other forms of communication. It forms the bedrock of India’s democratic structure by enabling open dialogue, criticism of government, and the airing of diverse viewpoints.
However, Article 19(2) provides the State with the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions” on this right in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. These grounds serve as the legal basis for various laws that restrict speech, including sedition laws, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)[7], and the National Security Act (NSA)[8].
SEDITION LAW :
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced during British rule, criminalized any act that sought to bring or attempt to bring into “hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection” towards the government established by law. Punishable by imprisonment for life or up to three years along with a fine, the provision was widely criticized for its vague and expansive language. Though the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld its constitutionality, it clarified that sedition could only apply to speech that incites violence or intends to cause public disorder.
Despite judicial safeguards, Section 124A was frequently misused. Reports of sedition charges being filed against journalists, students, and activists for mere criticism of government policies led to growing calls for its repeal.
In response, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, repealed Section 124A and introduced Section 147, which criminalizes acts that “endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” or incite “armed rebellion or subversive activities.” While the government claimed this new provision aligns more closely with national security needs, critics argue that the vague wording mirrors the flaws of Section 124A. The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent observation, warned that Section 147 should not become a tool to stifle dissent in the guise of maintaining unity and integrity.
UAPA AND NSA :
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), enacted in 1967 and amended several times, is India’s principal anti-terror law. It allows the government to ban organizations, declare individuals as terrorists, and detain persons for extended periods without formal charges. While aimed at curbing terrorism and secessionist threats, the UAPA has been criticized for its vague definitions of “unlawful activity” and “terrorist act,” and for its high potential for misuse. Bail is notoriously difficult under UAPA, leading to prolonged incarceration without trial, which many see as a violation of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Similarly, the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, empowers the central and state governments to detain individuals without trial for up to 12 months if they are considered a threat to national security, public order, or the maintenance of essential supplies. Like the UAPA, the NSA has been used against protestors and activists, often in politically sensitive contexts. The preventive detention aspect of the NSA raises grave concerns about due process and the potential erosion of civil liberties.
THE CHILLING EFFECT ON FREE SPEECH :
In democratic societies, freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of public discourse, allowing individuals to engage in debates, criticize government actions, and advocate for change. However, the presence and misuse of laws that criminalize dissent—such as sedition, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and preventive detention laws—have led to what is commonly referred to as a “chilling effect.” This phenomenon occurs when individuals self-censor or avoid expressing controversial or critical views out of fear of legal consequences, thereby weakening democratic engagement and civic participation.[9]
The chilling effect refers to the discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. In the context of free speech, this means that people may refrain from expressing themselves due to fear of being prosecuted, harassed, or detained under vaguely worded or broad laws. Such a climate not only erodes individual liberty but also dilutes the essence of democracy by curbing public debate, criticism, and activism. When laws are weaponized to suppress dissent rather than to prevent genuine threats to national security or public order, they undermine the very democratic values they purport to protect.[10]
Data from legal and rights organizations highlight the disproportionality in the use of sedition laws. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), sedition cases increased significantly between 2016 and 2020. However, conviction rates remained abysmally low. For instance, in 2020, 93 cases of sedition were registered but only 1 resulted in conviction, demonstrating that the law is more often used as a tool for harassment rather than legitimate prosecution.
A report by Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) shows that most sedition cases are filed against journalists, student leaders, and activists who are critical of government actions. Many of these individuals are arrested, denied bail, and forced into prolonged legal battles—even when there is no incitement to violence or threat to public order. This weaponization of legal provisions fosters a climate of fear, where the threat of arrest is enough to silence dissenting voices.
JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS :
The judiciary has, in several instances, sought to assert the primacy of free speech in a democratic society. In 2023, the Supreme Court of India reversed an earlier order by the Delhi High Court that had directed Wikipedia to take down certain articles related to a controversial case. The apex court emphasized the need to preserve the openness of online platforms and warned against the state becoming a censor of public discourse.
The Court reiterated that “freedom of expression on the internet, including on collaborative platforms like Wikipedia, is integral to democratic participation and must be protected.” This reaffirmation is crucial in a climate where free speech is increasingly under threat from both legislative overreach and executive arbitrariness.
NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN VS FREE EXPRESSION :
The debate between protecting national security and preserving free expression is a recurring dilemma in democratic governance. In India, this tension has been most visibly manifested in the continued use and recent revival of sedition laws. While the government justifies these laws as necessary for combating secessionist threats and maintaining public order, critics argue that they are outdated, overbroad, and prone to misuse.
The Law Commission of India, in its 279th Report (2023)[11], recommended the retention and even strengthening of sedition laws. The report emphasized that India’s national security environment remains fragile due to insurgencies, cross-border terrorism, and internal threats. The Commission contended that Section 124A of the IPC (now replaced by Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) serves as a critical tool for safeguarding the sovereignty and integrity of the state. It noted that while misuse is a concern, the solution lies not in repeal but in more precise drafting and stricter procedural safeguards. The Commission also stressed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), which upheld the constitutionality of sedition law with a narrow interpretation—limiting it to incitement to violence or public disorder—should guide its future application. The government has often reiterated that sedition laws are applied in rare and exceptional cases, particularly where national unity is under tangible threat.
Civil society groups, journalists, and legal scholars have strongly opposed this rationale. Critics argue that other laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA), already provide ample legal instruments to address national security concerns. The redundancy of sedition provisions, therefore, becomes a question of intent and misuse rather than necessity.
Moreover, opponents argue that sedition laws lack objective criteria, leading to frequent misuse against critics of the government, activists, and journalists. The low conviction rate coupled with high arrest numbers underscores how sedition laws are employed more to harass and silence dissent than to protect national integrity. The procedural delays and stigmatization accompanying sedition charges can have a deterrent effect on democratic participation, even if the accused are eventually acquitted.
Globally, many democratic nations have either repealed or significantly diluted sedition laws, recognizing their potential to infringe upon free speech. For example, the United Kingdom, the original source of India’s sedition law, formally abolished its sedition statutes in 2009, acknowledging their incompatibility with modern free speech standards.
Similarly, Australia repealed sedition laws in 2010, replacing them with narrowly defined antiterrorism provisions. In the United States, the Sedition Act of 1798 was allowed to expire and is now seen as an outlier in free speech jurisprudence. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly held that even offensive or provocative speech must be protected unless it incites violence or hatred.
India, despite being the world’s largest democracy, continues to operate with laws that are inconsistent with international standards on freedom of expression. The continued use of sedition laws, even after their symbolic repeal and reincarnation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, raises concerns about the country’s commitment to global democratic norms and constitutional protections.
JUDICIAL TRENDS AND REFORMS :
The Indian judiciary has historically played a complex yet pivotal role in shaping the discourse around free speech and sedition. While early jurisprudence leaned toward upholding the constitutionality of sedition laws, recent judicial trends indicate a growing recognition of the chilling effect such laws may have on democratic freedoms. With increasing public scrutiny and media attention on high-profile cases, Indian courts have begun to show a willingness to re-examine the balance between national security and freedom of expression.
Supreme Court’s Role: Re-examining the Validity of Sedition Laws
The Supreme Court of India, as the guardian of the Constitution, has shown signs of evolving judicial thinking regarding the sedition law. In May 2022, the Court took a significant step by putting Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code on hold and referring its constitutionality to a larger constitutional bench. This development marks a watershed moment in India’s legal landscape, as it reflects an institutional willingness to re-evaluate colonial-era laws in light of contemporary democratic principles.
In SG Vombatkere v. Union of India[12], the petitioner challenged the validity of Section 124A, arguing that it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the concerns, observed that the “colonial law” may not be in sync with the current democratic ethos. The bench further emphasized the need for the government to reconsider the law, given that it was originally enacted to suppress colonial dissent rather than democratic debate.
By putting the sedition law on hold and allowing no new FIRs under it without prior sanction from the central government, the Court offered temporary relief. However, the final decision on its constitutionality remains pending, making this an important moment of judicial introspection and potential reform.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT :
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[13]
A landmark judgment that is often cited in discussions about free speech in India is the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In this case, the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending “offensive” messages via electronic communication. The provision was challenged on the grounds of being vague, overly broad, and prone to misuse, much like Section 124A of the IPC.[14]
The Court unanimously held that Section 66A violated Article 19(1)(a) and did not fall within the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2). It asserted that mere annoyance or inconvenience cannot be grounds for limiting speech, and that any restriction must have a direct nexus to public order or incitement to violence.
This judgment is critical because it sets a judicial precedent for assessing sedition laws. The principles laid down — particularly the requirement for clarity, proportionality, and a direct link to public disorder — are directly applicable to the sedition debate. It also reflects the Court’s growing sensitivity to laws that are capable of being misused against dissenters, journalists, and political activists.
OBSERVATIONS FROM STATE HIGH COURTS :
Apart from the Supreme Court, several High Courts across India have also made notable contributions to the evolving jurisprudence around sedition and freedom of speech.
- Allahabad High Court – Dr. Kafeel Khan Case
In Dr. Kafeel Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), the Allahabad High Court quashed the detention of Dr. Khan under the National Security Act (NSA). He had been detained for a speech he gave during anti-CAA protests, which the government claimed was inflammatory.
However, the High Court ruled that Khan’s speech did not promote hatred or incite violence. Instead, it called for national unity and constitutional values. The Court observed that the State had acted arbitrarily and that free expression cannot be curtailed on the basis of hyper-technical readings or political discomfort. This ruling has since become a benchmark for evaluating executive overreach in the context of national security laws and their misuse to silence dissent.
- Rajasthan High Court – Commentary on New Sedition Provisions
In the wake of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the Indian Penal Code, the Rajasthan High Court noted that Section 147 of the BNS — which ostensibly replaces Section 124A — bears striking similarity to the old sedition provision. The Court cautioned that while the language may have been tweaked, the spirit and scope remain largely unchanged. It expressed concern that this new section may once again be used as a tool of suppression, and recommended that due safeguards be introduced to prevent arbitrary arrests.
These judicial observations are especially significant given that the law has only recently been revised. They underscore the judiciary’s ongoing skepticism toward legislation that may be used to curb legitimate dissent under the guise of national interest.
- Madras High Court – On Academic Freedom
In a lesser-known but important judgment, the Madras High Court in 2021 quashed sedition charges against a teacher who had critiqued the government’s policies during classroom discussions. The Court noted that “critical thinking is the cornerstone of academic freedom” and that attempts to penalize such discussions under sedition law amount to an attack on democratic institutions.
This decision reflects a broader judicial understanding of free speech as essential not only in public discourse but also in educational spaces — reinforcing the idea that democracy flourishes only when its citizens are allowed to question those in power.
Indian courts have not only limited themselves to ruling on individual cases but have also actively urged legislative bodies to revisit archaic laws. In the 2022 hearings on sedition, the Supreme Court remarked that “there is a need to balance national integrity and individual liberty” and suggested that Parliament reconsider the sedition provision in light of changing social contexts.
Such comments signal a clear shift in judicial attitude — from passive interpretation to active engagement with the law-making process. The judiciary is increasingly willing to call out legislative inertia, especially when it affects fundamental rights.
Furthermore, courts have consistently stressed the importance of guidelines for arrest and investigation under sensitive laws. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court mandated that no arrest should be made without a preliminary inquiry in cases where the offence carries a sentence of less than seven years. This principle is often invoked in sedition cases to challenge indiscriminate arrests.
SUGGESTIONS:
The debate around sedition laws in India encapsulates a broader struggle between state authority and individual liberty. While national security remains a legitimate concern for any sovereign state, it must not become a pretext for stifling dissent, curbing civil liberties, or silencing criticism. The persistent misuse of sedition laws, combined with ambiguous statutory language and the absence of procedural safeguards, calls for urgent legal and institutional reform. The following recommendations aim to strike a balance between safeguarding the state and upholding the democratic ethos of the Constitution.
1. Legal Reforms: Repeal or Substantial Amendment of Sedition Laws
The most immediate and necessary reform is the repeal or comprehensive overhaul of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Originally enacted by the British colonial regime to quell rebellion, the provision is now widely seen as anachronistic and incompatible with modern democratic values. The Law Commission’s past observations and the Supreme Court’s willingness to reconsider its constitutionality signal a ripe moment for legislative action.
If repeal is not politically feasible, Parliament must at the very least narrow the scope of the law to ensure that it only criminalizes speech or actions that incite imminent violence or threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the nation, in line with the “clear and present danger” test adopted by democratic jurisdictions globally. Vague and subjective terms like “disaffection” and “contempt” must be removed or precisely defined.
Moreover, the newly introduced Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is intended to replace Section 124A, must be revisited to ensure it does not merely replicate the sedition law in spirit with new wording, but instead reflects the constitutional mandate of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
2. Safeguards Against Misuse: Procedural and Institutional Oversight
In addition to substantive reform, clear procedural safeguards must be introduced to prevent the arbitrary and politically motivated application of national security laws, including sedition, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the National Security Act (NSA). These safeguards should include:
- Mandatory prior approval by a senior judicial magistrate or a committee of legal experts before registration of sedition-related FIRs.
- Time-bound judicial review of detentions under security laws to prevent prolonged incarceration without trial.
- Regular audits and reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies on the use of these laws, submitted to Parliament or an independent oversight body.
These checks would ensure that such laws are invoked only in genuinely threatening circumstances, not to silence dissent, satire, academic criticism, or journalistic investigations.
3. Promoting a Culture of Dissent: Beyond Legalism
Legal reforms, however, are not sufficient unless accompanied by a societal shift toward embracing dissent as essential to democracy. Dissenters—whether journalists, students, activists, or academics—must not be seen as anti-national but as contributors to a dynamic and accountable polity.
This cultural change requires robust civic education, media literacy, and political tolerance. Educational institutions, media platforms, and civil society organizations must play a proactive role in fostering democratic debate and protecting spaces for disagreement. The State, in turn, must actively promote pluralism rather than seek conformity.
Public officials and lawmakers should lead by example by respecting the right to criticize government policies without equating opposition with sedition. Courts, too, must continue to emphasize that criticism of the government is not a crime—a principle long upheld in democracies across the world.
CONCLUSION :
India continues to grapple with a deep-rooted conflict between the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enduring presence of sedition laws originating from the colonial era. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced in 1870 to curb dissent, remained in force post-independence despite judicial efforts to restrict its application solely to instances involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
Even in its rebranded form under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita as Section 147, the sedition law raises concerns due to its ambiguous language and the risk of misuse against dissenting voices, including journalists, critics, and civil society activists. Its arbitrary enforcement, along with stringent laws like the UAPA and NSA, contributes to a pervasive “chilling effect” that discourages individuals from exercising free speech for fear of legal consequences, thereby weakening democratic engagement and expression. Reports indicate that such laws are frequently employed more for intimidation than for valid legal prosecution.
Although the government defends these provisions as essential for safeguarding national security, critics contend that they are both unnecessary and prone to abuse. Acknowledging these apprehensions, the judiciary has paused the application of the old sedition statute and called for a comprehensive legislative reassessment. This paper ultimately argues in favor of either repealing or significantly revising sedition laws and introducing procedural checks to uphold free expression and democratic principles.
ANKITA SINGH , BBALLB (5th year) , AMITY LAW SCHOOL , GWALIOR , AUMP.
[1] Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc. (2023) Civils Daily. Available at: https://www.civilsdaily.com/story/freedom-of-speech/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[2] Mukherjee, M. (2017) Law, Culture and the Humanities, 16(3), pp. 454–476. doi: 10.1177/1743872116685034.
[3] The Case of Disha A. Ravi (2021) Global Freedom of Expression. Available at: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/the-case-of-disha-a-ravi/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[4] Kafeel Khan: A free man after spending seven months in jail for ‘preventive detention’ under NSA The Economic Times. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kafeel-khana-free-man-after-spending-seven-months-in-jail-for-a-preventive-detention-undernsa/articleshow/77894700.cms?from=mdr (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[5] 1962 AIR 955
[6] Legallyin.com (2024) Which offences of IPC are repealed in the BNS?, Your Source for Clear, Concise Legal Guidance.https://legallyin.com/which-offences-of-ipc-are-repealed-in thebns/#:~:text=Section%20124A%20(Sedition):%20This,interim%20order%20suspending%20its%20use. (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[7] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (2025) Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Prevention)_Act#:~:text=Stan%20Swamy%20was%20an% 20activist,and%20target%20minorities%20in%20India. (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[8] National Security Act (India) (2024) Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(India)#:~:text=The%20provincial%20legislatures%20had %20the,of%20the%20NSA%20in%201980. (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[9] Need to Pay Heed to UAPA to Protect Freedom of Speech: Former Civil Servants (no date) NewsClick. Available at: https://www.newsclick.in/need-pay-heed-uapa-protect-freedom-speech-former-civil-servants (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[10] Bhatia, G. (2013) The Chilling Effect in India, Constitutional Law and Philosophy. Available at: https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/the-chilling-effect-in-india/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
11 279th Law Commission Report Recommends Stricter Sedition Laws (2023) Supreme Court Observer. Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/279th-law-commission-report-recommends-stricter-sedition-laws/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[12] Case Page: Constitutionality of Sedition (2023) Supreme Court Observer. Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/sg-vombatkere-v-union-of-india-constitutionality-of-sedition-case-background/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).
[13] AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1523.
[14] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2023) Global Freedom of Expression. Available at: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ (Accessed: 15 May 2025).