Sedition laws occupy an important place in jurisprudence and have led to debate and discussion in various countries. These laws evoke extreme passion and emotion as the persons aggrieved by these laws are generally public figures or leaders, firmly committed to a cause popular or unpopular.
Thus, the two sides to the debate on amendment of sedition laws are such that taking a neutral stand may be difficult. That is what makes the debate lively and thought provoking. This essay takes the reader through the status, nature and popular opinion on India’s sedition law and also ventures into how the laws can be amended for India’s sedition laws to be at par with contemporary standards of a modern liberal democracy. The law on sedition in India had shot into limelight following the allegedly virulent “attack” on the JNU student leader, Kanhiya Kumar’s freedom of speech by the concerned executive in Delhi. However it is essential to note that Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 had all along remained a bone of contention considering its unsuitability ever since the historical trial of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Shri Shankerlal Banker. Gandhi in his written statement to the Sessions Court of Ahmedabad pointed out that Section 124 A was the “prince” among the political sections of the IPC, the sole purpose of which was to suppress the liberty of the citizen. To put it succinctly, the problem with the provision, as Gandhi put it, is that “Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression of his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite violence.”3
