THE LAW ON SEDITION IN INDIA: SCRUTINIZED AGAINST RULE OF LAW

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
Owing to its controversial history, the sedition law found its way into several Constituent Assembly
debates. Sardar Vallabhai Patel in his attempts to comprehensively lay down the ‘Rights of Freedom’
indicated that an exception be made for “seditious, obscene, blasphemous, slanderous, libellous or
defamatory” language. It was Somanth Lahiri, the leader of Communist Party of India, who opposed
the use of the word “seditious” and said that “even in England, a speech, however seditious it may
be, is never considered a crime unless an overt act is done”.4 This prompted a chain of debates that
ultimately demanded reform. An amendment was then moved to drop the word entirely and not allow
it to infringe upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to all citizens. The word was
absent in the Constitution of India when it was adopted on 26 November 1949, however, section 124A
stayed in the Indian Penal Code.