THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL
VOLUME:- 4 ISSUE NO:- 4 , OCTOBER 18, 2023
Page 1 of 7
ARTICLE 19(1)(a) VS . §124A OF I.P.C
CONNECTING SEDITION AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
K. VISHNU PRIYA
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)
NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW
ABSTRACT
This paper explains how Sedition, which has been a contentious issue, stifles the Fundamental Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a). This
analysis focuses on the historical connotation of §124A of the Indian Penal Code that deals with Sedition,
keeping in perspective the need and intention behind bringing this law up. This study tries to maintain the
balance between protecting national interests and the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens. This
paper provides a comprehensive understanding of various case laws and jurisprudence and throws light
on the rights of the citizens. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the implementation of
Sedition law and how it is used as a political tool in the age of democracy that results in intense
infringement upon the fundamental rights of the citizens
KEYWORDS
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
• §124 of the Indian Penal Code
• Democratic values and ethos & Violence against the State
• Vinod Dua case, Kedar Nath case, Toolkit case, etc.
INTRODUCTION
To provide a context for this paper, the analysis is laid upon Sedition, which is a section in I.P.C. used to
punish people who invoke violent rebellion against the Government and upon Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution that strives to protect the freedom of Citizens to freely express and speak in the ‘Democracy’
which works for the people, by the people, and of the people. By acknowledging that Fundamental Rights
are not absolute and come with certain limitations and restrictions, the paper reminds us of the fact that
this section is no longer used for national interests; instead, it became a political tool to stifle political
dissent. By uplifting the democratic values and ethos, it must be realized that the views of the Demos will
be the backbone of the democracy! To realize this fundamental truth, a shield is provided to protect the
liberties of people; Article 19 was drafted. In a wider context, the dynamic between sedition laws and
Article 19 has given rise to important questions regarding the delicate balance between the government’s
power to preserve law and order and the freedom of citizens to express their views without the threat of
prosecution.Page 2 of 7
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SEDITION
The origins of the sedition law within the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be traced back to the colonial era
when the IPC was first introduced in 1860 under British rule. Section 124A, specifically addressing
seditious activities, was incorporated with the primary aim of quelling dissent and thwarting challenges to
British colonial authority.1 During that period, the British colonial administration frequently encountered
opposition and protests from Indian nationalists who were advocating for independence and self
governance. Section 124A was introduced as a means to stifle dissent and categorize those advocating for
freedom as seditious individuals.
The underlying objective of introducing the sedition law into the IPC was essentially to safeguard the
interests of the colonial government by suppressing any form of protest, criticism, or opposition. The
British authorities aimed to maintain control and order in India, deeming any expression of dissent as a
direct threat to their dominion. Consequently, Section 124A was employed as a tool to target individuals
or groups who dared to voice objections against the British government, its policies, or its actions.
Although the colonial era concluded with India’s attainment of independence in 1947, Section 124A
remained embedded in the IPC, and independent India retained this provision. Over the years, this law has
been invoked in various instances, sparking debates about its relevance and its alignment with the
principles of a democratic society. Critics argue that the sedition law can be vulnerable to abuse, allowing
the suppression of legitimate dissent and encroaching upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression, a right enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The wording of s.124A effectively criminalizes any form of expression or behavior that may be
perceived as fostering contempt or disaffection toward the government. This lack of precision creates
opportunities for abuse and selective application, often targeting political adversaries. Over the years,
governments have employed the sedition law selectively to suppress voices critical of the ruling regime,
particularly singling out activists, journalists, and political opponents. Originally intended to quell anti
colonial sentiments during the colonial era, the sedition law has since been transformed into a tool for
stifling dissent in independent India. Its wide-reaching language and unclear provisions have made it
susceptible to misapplication, intensifying concerns about striking a balance between national security
and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democratic society.
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §124A. Page 3 of 7
WHEN CAN APERSON BE ARRESTED UNDER SEDITION?
It was held in Zakir Hussian vs. Union Territory of Ladakh that a person could be arrested under §124A
when it is established that the words, whether spoken or written, along with signs or visible depictions,
had the potential or the purpose of inciting public turmoil or the disturbance of public tranquility through
the provocation of unlawful conduct.2 Procedural guidelines were laid down by the court in this court
when charges are imposed on an individual under §124A. An individual may face arrest for sedition under
the following circumstances:
Expressing Hatred or Contempt: If a person, through spoken or written words, signs, or visible
representations, fosters a sense of hatred or contempt toward the legally established Indian government,
they may be subject to sedition charges.
Inciting Disaffection: When an individual’s expressions, in any form, are perceived as an effort to
provoke disaffection, which entails feelings of disloyalty or disapproval, against the Indian government, it
can result in a sedition arrest.
In brief, in India, an individual may face sedition charges if their words or deeds are perceived as stirring
up feelings of hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government recognized by law, to generate
public turmoil or violence. Nevertheless, the practical enforcement of sedition laws can be intricate and
contentious, necessitating a reasonable approach and adherence to the legal precedents.
ARTICLE 19(1)(A)’S BATTLE AGAINST §124A!
The architects of the Indian Constitution were profoundly influenced by democratic ideals and
acknowledged the significance of enabling citizens to express their opinions freely. Within a democratic
framework, the capacity of individuals to articulate their views, critique the government, and engage in
public discourse is indispensable for ensuring a lively and effective democracy. The struggle for
independence from British colonial rule shaped the Indian Constitution. Having directly experienced the
suppression of their freedom of speech and expression under colonial governance, the people of India
prioritized the inclusion of these rights in the new Constitution to prevent a recurrence of such oppressive
measures. The incorporation of freedom of speech and expression into the Indian Constitution was driven
by the imperative of upholding the nation’s democratic essence, safeguarding the rights of individuals,
and fostering an inclusive and diverse society that values and respects the voices of all its citizens.
The ongoing struggle between Article 19 and Section 124A of the IPC underscores the challenge of
striking a delicate balance between individual rights and the government’s responsibility to preserve
national security. In this battle, courts play a pivotal role in interpreting the law and determining the
extent to which it can limit freedom of speech and expression without encroaching upon fundamental
rights.
2
Zakir Hussian vs. Union Territory of Ladakh, CrlM no. 427/2020.Page 4 of 7
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON SEDITION
The constitutionality of Section 124-A was primarily questioned in the landmark case of Kedar Nath
Singh v. State of Bihar. 3 The central argument revolved around the contention that Section 124-A was in
conflict with Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.4 In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that a
offence of sedition under Section 124-A could only be sustained if the spoken or written statements had
the capacity to incite violence and disrupt public order. The court emphasized that an offense under this
section would only be established if the statements were reasonably likely to lead to acts of violence. The
courts were directed to follow the guidelines established in the Kedar Nath case, emphasizing that
accusations of sedition should not be invoked solely for the act of criticizing the government or its
policies.
In the recent toolkit case, State vs. Disha Ravi, the matter presented to the Delhi High Court revolved
around determining whether the applicant/accused, Disha, was merely involved in peaceful dissent and
protest against the agricultural acts, or if her demonstrations against the legislations were indeed seditious
in nature.5 The court by granting bail, held that an informed and assertive population, as opposed to an
apathetic or meek public, is undeniably a hallmark of a healthy and vigorous democracy, hence one can’t
be arrested under §124A for merely being active or criticizing the government.
There are instances where §124A was used against individuals for offence committed which doesn’t come
under its ambit. In the case of Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam6 , when the accused dishonored the
National Flag, she was arrested under §124A of I.P.C., and the court observed this flaw by making her
accused under §2 of National Honor Act, 1971. According to the court, there was no indication that this
action aimed to incite contempt, hatred, or disaffection against the government with the intention of
overthrowing it, hence doesn’t come under §124A of I.P.C.
In a different case, the police had received information about a gathering in a village where seditious
speeches were being delivered. Among the 30-40 attendees, a few individuals were in possession of
firearms. Upon the police’s arrival, the people started fleeing, and the accused-appellants were
subsequently apprehended. During their arrest, they were found to be in possession of multiple seditious
flyers and pamphlets. A complaint was filed against them, and charges were framed under Sections 121A,
122, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But the court held that nothing could be proved as to the
actions committed were against the state and done with the intention of uprooting the government by
provoking violence or rebellion. 7
3
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955.
4
INDIAN CONST., Art. 19, Cl. 2, ss. A.
5
State vs. Disha Ravi, CM APPL. 6685/2021.
6
Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam, Bail Appln/1123/2021.
7
Patit Paban Halder v. State of West Bengal, CRA No. 337 of 2006. Page 5 of 7
SEDITION AS ATOOL AGAINST JOURNALISTS
In Kishorechandra v. Union of India, two journalists were arrested for their posts and cartoons criticizing
the Government of Manipur. They challenged the constitutional validity of §124A, claiming that it
infringes their freedom of speech and expression. They argue that the legal precedent established in Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) is no longer applicable. This is due to changes in socio-economic
conditions since 1962, which may have justified certain limitations as outlined in Section 124A during
that era. Since then, new laws pertaining to safety, security, and public order have been enacted, making
Section 124A obsolete. They contended that §124A, in their view, does not constitute a justifiable
restriction. Consequently, they believe it falls outside the ambit of the reasonable restriction imposed on
the freedom of speech and expression as defined by Article 19(2). This case is a recent one and is still
pending in court.8
In another landmark judgement, Vinod Dua vs. Union of India, allegations were leveled against Vinod
Dua, asserting that his show, through false accusations, incited fear among the populace. The First
Information Report (FIR) also contended that the program had the potential to agitate public discontent,
leading to panic and causing individuals to disregard the lockdown and hoard unnecessary supplies. These
rumors were disseminated with the intent to instill fear or anxiety in the general public or a specific
segment thereof, with the goal of inducing someone to commit an offense against the state or disrupt
public tranquility. However, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Constitutional rights of the Citizens to
express dissent against the government that doesn’t level into a rebellion.9
For instance, in Rajat Sharma vs. Union of India10 , based on the statements made in an interview, a case
was filed under §124A claiming that those utterances would amount to seditious hence must be punished.
The court held that labeling the act of expressing a viewpoint that contradicts a decision taken by the
Central Government as seditious is not feasible. The statement in question did not contain any content
deemed by the Supreme Court as offensive or derogatory enough to warrant the initiation of court
proceedings.
8
Kishorechandra v. Union of India, IA No.27982/2021.
9
Vinod Dua vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 414.
10
Rajat Sharma vs. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 585.Page 6 of 7
CURTAILMENT OF RIGHTS
According to the data provided by NRCB, among the 475 sedition cases recorded in India from 2014 to
2021, Assam contributed 69 cases, which is equivalent to approximately 14.52 percent. In other words,
about one out of every six sedition cases registered in the country during the past eight years originated
from Assam.
Source: IE
The highest number of such instances were documented in Haryana (42 cases), with Jharkhand (40),
Karnataka (38), Andhra Pradesh (32), and Jammu and Kashmir (29) following closely. These six states
together contributed 250 cases, which is over half of the total sedition cases registered across the country
during the eight-year period.
The conviction percentage is relatively smaller. It clearly shows that people are redundantly getting
arrested on baseless grounds, and this purportedly points towards the fulfillment of the political interests
of the political people. This severely infringes the rights of the citizens. Through these actions, not just
their right to freedom of speech and expression is curtailed, but their right to life is curtailed. Their living
conditions are affected, their freedom to live in the society is curtailed. Unnecessary imposition of false
charges of Sedition for deviant purposes is highly encouraged under §124A! Only the judiciary that the
people approach as a last resort for seeking justice can become a beacon of true Justice and hope to the
victims of this colonial-draconian-political law. CONCLUSION
It is established through this paper that a citizen possesses the right to dissent or criticize the government’s
actions and its officials, provided that such commentary does not encourage people to resort to violence
against the government established by law or with the purpose of fomenting public turmoil. Sections
124A should be invoked exclusively when the words or expressions exhibit a harmful inclination or intent
to provoke public disorder or disrupt the established law and order. In recent times, there have been
appeals to reconsider and possibly modify or abolish Section 124A to bring it in harmony with the values
of a contemporary democratic society. Conversely, supporters of the law contend that it is indispensable
for preserving the nation’s unity and integrity and shielding it against both internal and external threats.
Nevertheless, it is imperative to examine the historical origins of the sedition law in the IPC, which
underscore its roots in colonial repression. Its continued existence in post-independence India prompts
significant inquiries about the equilibrium between national security and the freedom of speech.
In every democratic country, citizens should not be subjected to imprisonment solely on the grounds of
their disagreement with government policies. Variances in viewpoints, conflicts, deviations, expressions
of dissent, and even expressions of disapproval are acknowledged as legitimate methods to introduce
objectivity into government initiatives. The introduction of Section 124A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
aims to repress and eliminate any perpetuating forms of opposition within society. Such an inclination
contradicts the fundamental principles of a democratic system. Having such a provision in a progressive
country like India seems unnecessary. The severity of the penalty associated with this provision makes it
draconian. The persistence of such a clause has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression,
which is ostensibly a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. India
needs to adapt and reform its sedition laws to align with the evolving requirements of society.
Page 7 of 7
