Section 124A (Criminalises sedition) of the Indian Penal Code - Indian Judiciary

Background

This interim order was passed by the Court while considering a batch of writ petitions filed by Army veteran Major-General SG Vombatkere (Retired) and the Editors Guild of India, Former Union Minister Arun Shourie , TMC MP Mahua Moitra etc. against the said provision.

Sedition- राजद्रोह

In simple terms – it means to encourage people to oppose the government or authority.
When a person promotes hatred towards the government which results in people creating public disorder or violence is sedition.
The act which promotes disaffection towards the government, the act is referred to be seditious Act.

Section 124A in The Indian Penal Code-

124A. 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 withimprisonment 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.
भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 124 A – राजद्रोह –
“बोले या लिखे गए शब्दों या संकेतों द्वारा या दृश्य प्रस्तुति द्वारा, जो कोई भी भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित सरकार के प्रति घृणा या अवमान पैदा करेगा या पैदा करने का प्रयत्न करेगा, असंतोष उत्पन्न करेगा या करने का प्रयत्न करेगा, उसे आजीवन कारावास या तीन वर्ष तक की कैद और ज़ुर्माना अथवा सभी से दंडित किया जाएगा।”

Origins

Thomas Macaulay, who drafted the Indian Penal Code, had included the law on sedition as Section 113, But it was not added in the code enacted in 1860 for reasons un-known.
In 1890, sedition was included as an offence under section 124A IPC through the Special Act XVII. Section 124A of IPC was milder than that of sedition in English Law. The seditious feeling was penalised in English Law.
in 1955- The punishment prescribed originally- transportation “beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life”, was replaced by life imprisonment
was extensively used to curb political dissent during the Independence movement.
Several pre-independence cases involving Section 124A of the IPC are against celebrated freedom fighters, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad and Mahatma Gandhi.
It is during this time that the most notable trial on sedition — Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak — took place in 1898. For publishing an article in the newspaper about the Maratha warrior Shivaji, Tilak was accused of sedition.

Constitution Assembly Debates-

There was a proposal to keep sedition as a restriction as a restriction on Freedom of speech in the Constitution.
But this proposal was opposed by the Constitution Assembly as it reminded of the British Rule which should not be present in Independent India.
Shri K M Munshi said that sedition is an offence because government and law must be respected and obeyed, to avoid chaos and lawlessness. Public disorder or the willingness to create public disorder is the soul of the offence.

Legal challenges to the sedition law-

1950 – Romesh Thapar v State of Madras, SC held “criticism of the government exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it, is not to be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the press, unless it is such as to undermine the security of or tend to overthrow the state.”
1951- Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State , and
1959- Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh — declared that Section 124A of the IPC was primarily a tool for colonial masters to quell discontent in the country and declared the provision unconstitutional.

The Kedar Nath ruling on sedition

A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the earlier rulings of Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and upheld the constitutional validity of IPC Section 124A. However, the court attempted to restrict its scope for misuse.
The court held that unless accompanied by an incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labelled sedition.
the Court also distinguished between ‘The Government established by law’ and ‘the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration’.
The ruling restricted sedition only insofar as seditious speech tended to incite “public disorder”- a phrase Section 124A itself does not contain but was read into it by the court.
The court also issued seven “guidelines”, underlining when critical speech cannot be qualified as sedition.
In its guidelines on using the new, restrictive definition of sedition law, the court said not all speech with “disaffection”, “hatred,” or “contempt” against the state, but only speech that is likely to incite “public disorder” would qualify as sedition.
In Raghubir Singh vs State Of Bihar, 1986 and Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), — the court also held that a person can be convicted for sedition even if she is not the author of the seditious speech but has merely circulated it.
In 2016, in Arun Jaitleyv State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court held that criticism of the judiciary or a court ruling would not amount to sedition.
V. A. Pugalenthi v. State, the Madras High Court held that reaching out to the public to gain support against the Central and State Governments on the issue of NEET examination is not sedition as every citizen of the country has the fundamental right to register protest peacefully without violence and public nuisance.In Vinod Dua v Union of India 2021, the Supreme Court quashed Sedition FIRs against the journalist for criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis and cautioned against unlawful application of the provision.

Important Points from this Interim Order.

In SG Vombatkere vs Union of India–
the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked the Central government and States to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code .
A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kantand Hima Kohli directed that Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government’s exercise of reviewing Section 124A is complete.
The Supreme Court Wednesday directed that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A, which deals with the offence of sedition, be kept in abeyance till the central government completes the promised exercise to reconsider and re-examine the provision.
The court also said it is of the view that till re-examination of Section 124A is complete, it will be appropriate not to continue usage of the provision by various governments.
If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A, affected parties are at liberty to approach concerned courts for reliefs.
The Court also suggested that the Centre issue directions to States to not register sedition cases till the review of Section 124A is complete and sought its response on the same.
those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail.
These directions will be in force until further orders.

Talking about the needs of the action, court said-

“The court is cognisant of the duty of the State on one hand and citizens’ civil liberties on the other . There is a requirement of balance of consideration. The case of petitioner is that this provision of law dated back 1870 and is being misused. The Attorney General had also given instances of glaring misuse like cases registered for recital of hanuman chalisa“