Whatsapp 93132-18734 For Details
Get Free IAS Booklet
Get Free IAS Booklet
The Sedition Law in India is a relic of British rule (Section 124A of IPC). It has been a subject of intense debate and judicial scrutiny. Introduced in 1870 to suppress dissent, it criminalizes acts promoting "disaffection" towards the government. The judgments like Kedar Nath Singh narrowed its scope to only include speech which would lead to incitement of violence. There are concerns that use of sedition law is misused and leads to violation of free speech. The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023 removes sedition but introduces a new provision penalizing acts endangering national security. While aimed at achieving similar goals, the broad wording of "subversive activities" raises criticisms. Globally, the trend leans towards repealing sedition laws in favor of free speech, with countries like UK and New Zealand leading the way. There is a need of finding a balance between national security and free expression through a comprehensive review, clearer definitions, and stricter judicial oversight to prevent misuse. Existing laws on public order can also be used to address genuine threats without stifling criticism.
The Sedition Law in India was a law (Section 124A of the IPC) that criminalized speech that brought or attempted to bring "hatred or contempt" or "excites disaffection" towards the government. It was introduced during British rule in 1870 to suppress dissent.
The BNS removes sedition as a crime but introduces a new provision penalizing acts endangering national security and unity. This includes inciting secession, armed rebellion, or activities endangering India's sovereignty.
Critics argue the Sedition Law is a violation of free speech, misused to silence criticism of the government, and a relic of British colonial rule. The broad wording can lead to misuse and a "chilling effect" on free expression.
The concept of sedition laws emerged in England during the 17th and 18th centuries as a way to control dissent against the monarchy. In 1870, with the rise of influential figures like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and the growing Indian independence movement, the colonial government introduced Section 124A through an amendment. This new section specifically targeted acts promoting "disaffection" towards the government and became a potent weapon for the British to stifle dissent and imprison prominent leaders like Tilak, Bhagat Singh, and Mahatma Gandhi. Despite being a product of colonial rule, the sedition law was retained in independent India due to concerns about national security and maintaining unity in the newly formed nation.
The sedition law in India is a relic of British colonial rule. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced in 1870, aimed to suppress dissent and the growing Indian independence movement. It defines sedition as any act, word, or sign that brings or attempts to bring "hatred or contempt" or "excites disaffection" towards the government established by law. It is also a Non-Bailable Offence. Punishment under Sedition can range from imprisonment up to 3 years to a life term and a fine may also be added.
However, the 22nd Law Commission recommended that the Sedition law should be retained, saying that repealing the provision may have harmful ramifications for the security and integrity of the country.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) of 2023 does away with the concept of sedition as defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
As per BNS,2023:
Essentially, the BNS aims to achieve similar goals as the sedition law but with a potentially narrower focus. Here's why some might argue it's not a complete departure from sedition:
Overall, the BNS represents a significant shift:
The BNS is a relatively new legislation, and its interpretation and application by the courts will be crucial in determining its effectiveness. A thorough review is necessary to ensure it aligns with the right to free speech which is enshrined in our Constitution. Striking a balance between national security and free expression is of paramount importance. There is a need for clearer and narrow definitions of what constitutes seditious speech with stricter judicial oversight to prevent misuse. Furthermore, existing legal frameworks related to public disorder and incitement to violence must be effectively utilized to counter genuine threats, without stifling healthy criticism. This multi-pronged approach can safeguard national security while fostering a vibrant democracy.
Book your Free Class
Book your Free Class