Open Access Research Article
EVALUATING THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IPC SECTION 124A AND BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA CLAUSE 150 BY: IFRA SHAIKH
Published Paper
Article Details
“EVALUATING THE CONTEMPORARY
RELEVANCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA: A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IPC SECTION 124A AND BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA CLAUSE
150”
AUTHORED BY:
IFRA SHAIKH
College:
Shree L.R. Tiwari College of Law
ABSTRACT:
Sedition,
as defined by Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, has a complex history
rooted in colonial suppression of dissent, yet it persists in contemporary
India as a tool to quell opposition to the government. This paper critically
examines the constitutionality and relevance of sedition in a democratic
republic like India. By analyzing historical background, case laws, and recent
legislative developments, the study assesses the impact of sedition laws on
freedom of speech and expression. The proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bill
offers amendments to modernize sedition provisions, but concerns remain
regarding potential misuse and infringement of civil liberties. Comparative
analysis between IPC Section 124A and BNS Clause 150 reveals shifts in scope,
methods of offense, and penalties. Loopholes in the proposed legislation
necessitate further clarity and safeguards against misuse. Suggestions for
reform emphasize the need for precision in defining sedition, judicial
oversight, alignment with international standards, and education on freedom of
speech. Ultimately, the paper advocates for a balanced approach that
prioritizes both national security and individual rights, ensuring that
sedition laws reflect democratic principles in contemporary India.
Key-words: Sedition, Indian
Penal Code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Fundamental Right, Laws.
INTRODUCTION:
Sedition is
speech, writing, or behaviour intended to encourage people to fight against or
oppose the government[1].
Section 124A of Indian Penal Code says, “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 with
[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or both[2].
The term
‘Sedition’ refers to “behaviour or speech that incites rebellion against the
state’s authority.” The Sedition Law pertains to section 124A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, viewed as a justifiable limit on freedom of expression.
Crafted by
British historian-politician Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837, sedition was
described as an action whereby “whoever, by words, spoken or written, signs,
visible representation, or otherwise, endeavours to foster hatred or contempt,
or stirs up disaffection towards the lawful government in India.” The inclusion
of the Sedition charge in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code in 1870 was a
tool utilized by the British Colonial administration primarily to quell the
writings and speeches of notable Indian freedom fighters. Figures such as Mahatma
Gandhi, Lokmanya Tilak, and Jogendra Chandra Bose faced suppression of their
writings and were prosecuted under sedition laws for their criticisms of
British rule.
According
to section 124A, sedition constitutes a serious offence, carrying a punishment
ranging from three years’ imprisonment to life, accompanied by a fine.
Individuals charged under this law also face restrictions on government
employment and the confiscation of their passports by the government.
Interestingly, the United Kingdom abolished the sedition charge in 2010.
The main
purpose of my research paper is to find whether sedition should be in existence
in newly democratic republic country like India? Is sedition is the end result
of a person whose thought are against the State? How does freedom of speech and
expression counter the Sedition? Whether Government or State is using
arbitration with the help of Section 124A?.
METHODOLOGY:
The
research methodology for this study involves three main components: analytical,
qualitative, and the utilization of secondary data.
1.
Analytical Approach: The researcher will employ
analytical methods to systematically examine and interpret existing data,
literature, and information related to the research topic. This approach
enables the identification of patterns, trends, and relationships within the
data, facilitating a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
2.
Qualitative Techniques:
Qualitative methods will be used to explore the subjective aspects of the
research topic, such as attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions.
3.
Secondary Data Sources: The study
will also draw upon secondary data sources, including published literature,
reports, articles, and databases relevant to the research area. These sources
will complement the primary data collected through analytical and qualitative
methods, providing additional context, background information, and comparative
data for analysis.
By
combining these three approaches, the research aims to obtain a comprehensive
understanding of the research topic, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative data to generate meaningful insights and contribute to existing
knowledge in the field.
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND:
The British
government introduced the sedition law in 1860 to suppress harsh criticisms of
the colonial administration and to prevent any actions against the colonial
regime. This law, which restricts free speech and fundamental rights in
post-independence India, was frequently used against freedom fighters.
Prominent figures of the independence movement, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
J.C. Bose, and M.K. Gandhi, were imprisoned under this stringent legislation. Following
India’s independence in 1947, the Constituent Assembly extensively debated the
relevance of the sedition law. After intense discussions, the Assembly chose to
exclude the term “sedition” from the constitution while retaining Section 124-A
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the contentious law was reintroduced
through the controversial First Amendment, spearheaded by India’s first Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru’s government. Not only did Nehru’s administration revive the
sedition law, but it also expanded its scope by including two additional
grounds – “friendly relations with a foreign state” and “public order” – as
justifications for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on free speech under
Article 19 (2). It wasn’t until 1973, during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime
Minister, that section 124-A was made a cognizable offense under a new Code of
Criminal Procedure. This change granted the police the authority to arrest
individuals without a warrant[3].
SEDITION
LAW UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860:
124A Sedition,
states 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 with
imprisonment 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[4].
There has
been considerable debate regarding the constitutionality and contemporary
relevance of sedition law in India. Arguments often highlight the oppressive
and colonial origins of the law, leading to scrutiny of section 124A, which was
referred to a constitutional bench by the Apex court to assess its
constitutionality. Recently, a new bill, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was
proposed as a replacement for the Indian Penal Code, offering a different
approach to addressing sedition compared to the IPC. The Law Commission’s 2023
report on the usage of sedition law provides valuable insights into its
relevance and proposes potential amendments to prevent its misuse.
Additionally, discussions from the constitutional assembly proceedings in
December 1948 shed light on sedition as a reasonable restriction and the
rationale behind its removal in favour of maintaining ‘public order’. Case laws
from both the British India and Independent India periods contribute to a
better understanding and interpretation of the loopholes inherent in this law[5].
CASE LAWS:
1.
Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1917)19BOMLR211: In June
1908, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested under section 124-A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sedition. This section pertains to actions that aim
to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the established government,
while section 153-A of the IPC was invoked for his articles published in Kesari,
a Marathi newspaper founded by Tilak.
Tilak’s trial was largely a
formality. Despite presenting compelling and logical arguments, Tilak was
convicted by a jury consisting of 7 Anglo-Indians and 2 Indians, with a
majority vote of 7:2. He was sentenced to six years of transportation and fined
?1000. During the trial, Judge Davar, in his judgment, described Tilak as a man
with a diseased and perverted mind, stating that his journalism was a curse to
India[6].
Following his conviction, Tilak expressed his innocence with remarkable
dignity, stating: “All that I wish to say is that in spite of the verdict of
the Jury I still maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule
the destinies of men and nations, and I think it may be the will of Providence
that the cause I represent may be benefited more by my suffering than by my pen
and tongue[7].”
2.
Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955): In this
instance, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the sedition
law as stipulated in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The
petitioner argued that the law inhibits freedom of speech, particularly for
those with dissenting views against the government, which is not in the public
interest. The Court, however, ruled that Section 124A should be interpreted to
penalize only statements that incite public disorder. Additionally, the Court
emphasized the importance of upholding freedom of speech to its fullest extent,
while acknowledging the necessity of imposing reasonable restrictions to ensure
the safety and integrity of the State[8].
3.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995 3 SCC 214): The Supreme
Court overturned the convictions under the charges of ‘sedition’ (Section 124A,
IPC) and ‘promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, etc.’ (Section 153A, IPC), and acquitted individuals who had chanted
slogans such as “Khalistan zindabaad, Raj Karega Khalsa,” and “Hinduan Nun
Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Karan Da” in the
evening of October 31, 1984, shortly after the assassination of Indira Gandhi,
outside a cinema located in a market frequented by Hindus and Sikhs in
Chandigarh. Hence, the criminalization and punishment of words and speech are
justified only when they are aimed at inciting crowds or mobs to engage in
violent actions. Mere words and phrases, regardless of how offensive they may
be, do not constitute a criminal offense unless they meet this criterion[9].
SEDITION
LAW IN BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) AND
ITS PURPOSE:
Recently,
on August 11th, the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (bill) 2023 was
introduced, which addresses sedition in its Section 150. This bill imposes
penalties for acts that jeopardize India’s sovereignty, integrity, and unity,
and it also modifies certain terms used in Section 124(A) of IPC, while
altering the punishment for the offense. The provisions outlined in Section 150
of BNS, which includes the use of spoken or written words, signs, visual
representations, electronic communication, and financial resources[10],
if they incite or attempt to incite secession, armed rebellion, or encourage
separatist activities that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
Such actions constitute offenses punishable by imprisonment for life or
imprisonment of up to seven years along with a fine.
According
to Home Minister, the objective of these provisions is not merely punishment
but rather the delivery of justice. While section 124(A) of the IPC was
originally introduced by the British to eradicate the criticism against them,
the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims to prioritize justice over suppression and
punishment. However, the bill grants significant discretion to law enforcement
authorities to determine what actions constitute a threat to India’s
sovereignty, unity, and integrity, raising concerns about potential misuse for
ulterior motives. However, it does not address the contentious issue discussed
in the Kedarnath Singh case regarding the pernicious tendency criterion[11].
The
explanation for this section clarifies that: Expressing disapproval of
government measures or actions, with the intention of seeking lawful
alterations, without inciting or attempting to incite the aforementioned
activities, does not fall under the purview of this section[12].
CRITICISM
OF SEDITION LAW AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:
The first
and foremost question which arises in mind is whether or should India need
Sedition Law which violate Fundamental Rights of the citizens? Critics have
condemned this particular section due to its origin in the colonial period and
its detrimental effect on constructive criticism of the government. It imposes
limitations on the freedom of speech and expression, which is safeguarded by
Article 19(2) of the Constitution, thus rendering it draconian in nature[13].
If we go
into the detail criticism of the sedition law in the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
which stems from various quarters, including legal experts, human rights
activists, and civil society organizations. The enactment of sedition laws by
the British government was tailored to safeguard and perpetuate colonialism,
circumstances that have no relevance in modern democracies that prioritize
freedom of speech and expression. In liberal democracies, the fundamental
principle dictates that citizens are entitled to freely think, express, and
organize dissent against the government. Rather than being deemed criminal, the
ability to freely express oneself is considered a cornerstone of democratic
governance. Reflecting this principle, many former British colonies, including
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, have abolished seditious
provisions. Even the British government repealed such provisions under the
Coroners and Justice Act in 2010[14].
Despite the
widespread misuse of sedition laws by governments of various ideological leanings,
resulting in unjust incarceration of numerous individuals without fair legal
proceedings, there has been a conspicuous absence of efforts from political or
judicial entities to halt the erosion of Indian democracy. While the Supreme
Court issued a definitive verdict in the KedarNath case in 1962, emphasizing
that sedition laws should only be invoked in rare instances where national
security and sovereignty are genuinely threatened, this guidance has had little
impact on the frequent application of sedition charges by state authorities,
notably the police. With mounting political polarization and a growing lack of
trust in governance, the sedition law has increasingly been weaponized by
governments as a convenient tool to suppress dissent and curtail freedom of
speech. Despite several recent rulings by the Supreme Court and various high
courts highlighting the rampant misuse of the law, there has been little to no
deterrent effect on law enforcement agencies and other state institutions[15].
Overall,
the sedition law in the IPC has faced significant criticism for its colonial
legacy, its potential to curtail free speech, its chilling effect on dissent,
its misuse and abuse by authorities, and its failure to meet international
human rights standards. These criticisms have led to calls for its repeal or
significant reform to safeguard democratic values and civil liberties in India.
Therefore India as a republic democratic country does not need the laws like
Sedition.
COMPARATIVE
STUDY :
An
examination of the bill indicates that the offense of sedition has been
preserved under the proposed legislation with a revised name and a broader
definition of “Acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.” The
Union home minister stated in the Lok Sabha that one of the proposed laws aimed
at reforming the criminal justice system will completely abolish the offense of
sedition, as outlined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and
mentioned that the bill will undergo scrutiny by a parliamentary panel. The
operation of Section 124A, which is a non-bailable offense punishable by
imprisonment up to life and is often criticized for being misused to suppress
dissent, is currently suspended due to an ongoing interim order from the top
court issued on May 11, 2022. A significant modification in the proposed draft
Section 150 of the BNS bill is the elimination of a provision that allowed
individuals convicted of sedition to escape with only a fine: Section 150 now
stipulates imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to seven years, in addition
to a fine, as punishment. Section 150 states: “Whoever intentionally or
knowingly, through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations,
electronic communication, financial means, or otherwise, incites or attempts to
incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or fosters sentiments
of separatism or endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India; or
engages in any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment up to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.” Comparing
this with Section 124A of the IPC, which states: “Whoever, through spoken or
written words, signs, visible representations, or otherwise, brings or attempts
to bring into hatred or contempt, or incites or attempts to incite disaffection
towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, with or without fine, or imprisonment up to three years,
with or without fine, or with a fine. A comparative analysis between the old
and new provisions reveals that Section 150 now includes “electronic
communication” and “use of financial means” as methods of perpetuating an act
that endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Moreover, the
new provision specifies that the offense under Section 150 will not be directed
against “the Government established by law in India,” as was previously
mentioned in Section 124A of the IPC. However, the violation outlined in
Section 150 occurs when actions incite “secession or armed rebellion or
subversive activities or promote sentiments of separatist activities or
jeopardize the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.”[16].
Section 150
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces legal penalties for ‘Acts that endanger
the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India’, assigning punishments ranging
from life imprisonment to a minimum of seven years, along with a fine. This
marks an increase in the minimum punishment from three to seven years. Although
not explicitly named ‘sedition’, the essence of the sedition provision under
section 124A of the IPC is preserved within this clause, potentially
encompassing a broader array of actions. These actions are described in vague
and ambiguous terms, raising concerns about the provision’s constitutionality.
Reviewing the historical and legal context of sedition offers valuable insights
into the potential impact of this clause.
While
Clause 150 of BNS maintains the traditional methods of committing sedition,
such as through words or visible representation, it redefines the actions that
constitute the offence. Unlike IPC’s section 124A, which targets acts intended
to stir up ‘hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government’, the BNS
clause targets actions aimed at inciting ‘secession, armed rebellion, or
subversive activities, or encouraging separatist sentiments that threaten
India’s sovereignty or its unity and integrity’. This shift not only changes
the focus from the government to the state of India itself but also broadens
the scope of activities deemed threatening, incorporating modern means of
communication and financial transactions as potential tools for committing the
offence. Additionally, the requirement for the offender to act ‘purposely or
knowingly’ introduces a specific intent component to the offence[17].
The
transition from the sedition law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to its
reformulation in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) marks a significant shift in
the legal landscape regarding acts that threaten the state’s stability. From
the above all content and observation a comparison between the sedition law as
outlined in Section 124A of the IPC and the proposed legislation under Clause
150 of the BNS has been extracted in following parts of differentiation.
1. Definition
and Scope: In IPC Section 124A focuses on acts that incite “hatred,
contempt, or disaffection” towards the Government of India. The emphasis is on
the government’s stability and the relationship between the government and the
citizens, while in BNS Clause 150 expands the scope to include “secession,
armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encouraging feelings of separatist
activities” that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. This
represents a broader range of activities beyond just the government’s
stability, encompassing threats to the nation’s overall unity and integrity.
2. Methods
of Committing the Offence: In IPC the act can be committed “by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, while BNS retains the IPC’s modes but adds “electronic
communication” and “financial means” as additional methods, reflecting the
modern means of communication and transaction.
3. Object of
the Provision: Where IPC targets actions against “the Government established by
law”, on the other hand BNS Shifts the focus to actions against “the
sovereignty or unity and integrity of India,” broadening the provision’s
applicability from the government to the nation as a whole.
4. Mens
Rea (Intent Requirement): IPC does not explicitly define the mental state
required to constitute the offence, where as BNS Specifies that the act must be
committed “purposely or knowingly,” introducing a clearer requirement for the
perpetrator’s intent.
5. Punishments:
In IPC Punishment can include “imprisonment 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”, where as on the other side BNS Prescribes
“imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine,” establishing a minimum punishment of seven
years, which is an increase from the IPC’s provisions.
6. Constitutional
and Legal Implications: While the IPC’s Section 124A has been criticized
for its potential misuse against freedom of speech and dissent, the BNS’s
Clause 150, despite changing nomenclature and expanding definitions, retains
the essence of sedition. It introduces modern means of committing the offence
and specifies the intent required, potentially addressing some concerns
regarding vagueness and applicability. However, the broadening of acts covered
under Clause 150 raises new concerns about its impact on freedom of expression
and its constitutional validity, given the ambiguity and potential for misuse.
In overall
observation, the shift from IPC to BNS in dealing with sedition represents an
attempt to modernize and clarify the law while addressing contemporary forms of
communication and financial transactions. However, it also introduces new
challenges regarding the balance between national security and the protection
of fundamental rights[18].
LOOPHOLES
AND FINDINGS:
There’s
been considerable discussion about the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, intended
to replace the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and its omission of the term
“Sedition.” The Indian government has articulated that as a democratic country,
India champions the freedom of speech and is keen on doing away with the
colonial-era law on sedition, which aligns with the ethos of a liberal
democracy. However, the essence of Section 124A of the IPC, relating to
sedition, seems to subtly persist in Clause 150 of the BNS. The objectives
behind the two provisions diverge significantly: Section 124A aims to restrict
free speech, whereas Clause 150 of the BNS is more concerned with safeguarding
national security, striving for a balance between individual freedom and the
security of the state. This clause, under Part 7 concerning offences against
the State, criminalizes actions deemed a threat to India’s sovereignty, unity,
and integrity. It is now incumbent upon the Government of India to offer
further clarity and achieve a more refined balance.
Section 150
of the BNS broadens the range of acts considered threats to national security,
specifically including ‘electronic communication’ to potentially encompass
private social media messages and posts. The reference to ‘financial means’
might allow for allegations related to financial transactions. This provision
clearly outlines the activities it targets: engaging in secession,
participating in armed rebellion, undertaking subversive actions, and promoting
separatist sentiments. The clear requirement of criminal intent, either
purposely or knowingly, is a positive development. However, for a country often
criticized for its overly cautious, sometimes overreaching approach to
security, regardless of the ruling government, the need for precise legal
definitions is critical[19].
Historically,
the law was predominantly employed against individuals who politically opposed
the current government rather than actual threats to the state. The misuse of
governmental power and regulations to suppress dissenting voices remains
unchanged, as evidenced by politicians targeting citizens who challenge them.
This misuse prompted the Supreme Court to suspend the law’s application last
year. However, the Law Commission’s recommendations for safeguards against such
abuse were not fully considered, leading to ongoing instances where police
still charge people under this law despite the Supreme Court’s suspension.
Critics argue that the law has been interpreted too broadly, making it a tool
to suppress activists, journalists, students, and others voicing dissent or
critiquing government actions[20].
SUGGESTION:
The best
outcome would be to eliminate the law and direct related cases to Articles 1
and 2 of the Indian Constitution. Nevertheless, given the Government’s growing
authoritarian approach, the judiciary might be swayed to settle for establishing
clear rules for handling cases related to social media and online dissent[21].
Suggestions
for reforming sedition law in India often revolve around balancing national
security concerns with the protection of free speech and expression, a cornerstone
of democratic societies. Here are several suggestions:
1.
Repeal or Redefine: Consider repealing the
sedition law or significantly narrowing its definition to only cover acts
involving the incitement to violence or insurrection against the State. This
would prevent misuse against speech that is critical of the government but does
not incite violence.
2.
Clarity and Precision: Amend the
law to make it clear and precise, ensuring that it only targets actions with a
direct intention to overthrow the government through violent means. This would
help safeguard against the broad interpretation that could curb legitimate
dissent.
3.
Safeguards Against Misuse: Implement
strict guidelines and safeguards to prevent the misuse of the law, including
requiring a higher threshold of evidence and approval from a higher authority
before filing charges.
4.
Judicial Oversight: Ensure judicial oversight
in the application of the sedition law to protect against arbitrary and
politically motivated charges. Judges should have the authority to dismiss
cases at an early stage if they do not meet the strict criteria for sedition.
5.
Public Interest Defense: Introduce
a public interest defense for those charged with sedition, allowing defendants
to argue that their actions were aimed at promoting democratic values and
social welfare.
6.
Regular Review: Establish a mechanism for regular
review of the application of the sedition law to ensure it is used
appropriately and to make necessary adjustments based on its impact on civil
liberties.
7.
Education and Training: Provide
training for law enforcement and the judiciary on the appropriate application
of the sedition law to prevent its misuse and to understand the importance of
protecting freedom of speech.
8.
International Standards: Align the
sedition law with international human rights standards, ensuring that
restrictions on free speech are necessary, proportionate, and in pursuit of a
legitimate aim.
By taking
these steps, India can better balance the need for national security with the
protection of individual rights and freedoms, fostering a more open and
democratic society.
CONCLUSION:
In
conclusion, the sedition law in India, as outlined in Section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code, has a contentious history rooted in colonial suppression of
dissent. Despite India’s transition to a democratic republic, the sedition law
continues to raise questions about its compatibility with fundamental rights
such as freedom of speech and expression. The ongoing debate surrounding the
constitutionality and relevance of sedition reflects broader concerns about the
balance between national security and civil liberties. The Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS) bill of 2023 proposes amendments to the sedition law, aiming to
modernize its provisions and address contemporary challenges. However, concerns
remain regarding the potential for misuse and the impact on freedom of
expression. The comparison between the IPC’s Section 124A and the BNS’s Clause
150 highlights both continuity and change in the legal landscape concerning
sedition.
Loopholes
and findings suggest the need for clarity and precision in defining
sedition-related offenses, as well as safeguards against misuse. Suggestions
for reform include repealing or redefining the sedition law, ensuring judicial
oversight, and aligning it with international human rights standards.
Ultimately, the path forward requires a careful balance between national
security imperatives and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. By
implementing reforms that uphold democratic principles and respect civil
liberties, India can navigate the complexities of sedition law in the modern
era.
[1]
https://docplayer.net/235499063-An-overall-scenario-of-sedition-offence-in-indian-law-perspectives-a-critical-analysis.html
[2]
http://pure.jgu.edu.in/4560/1/Addressing%20the%20inconsistency%20sedition%20and%20freedom%20of%20speech%20and%20expression.pdf
[3] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law
[4]
https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/37E592F0-BE2A-475F-AF99-2F6909F3CF11.pdf
[5] https://theamikusqriae.com/evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india-and-implications-of-section-150-of-the-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/
[6]
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6431-case-analysis-emperor-v-bal-gangadhar-tilak-1908.html
[7] https://dokumen.pub/a-trial-on-trial-the-great-sedition-trial-of-1944-firstnbsped-093948420x.html
[8]
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/indian-penal-code/kedarnath-v-state-of-bihar-air-1962-sc-955#:~:text=The%20Court%20concluded%20that%20Section,and%20integrity%20of%20the%20State.
[9]
https://thewire.in/law/a-short-summary-of-the-law-of-sedition-in-india
[10]
https://theamikusqriae.com/evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india-and-implications-of-section-150-of-the-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/
[11]
https://theamikusqriae.com/evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india-and-implications-of-section-150-of-the-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/
[12]
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/india/2023/08/12/sedition-law-new-section-150-difference.html
[13] https://theamikusqriae.com/evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india-and-implications-of-section-150-of-the-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/
[14] https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law
[15]
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law
[16]
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sedition-under-the-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bill-2023-what-s-changed-101691751947093.html
[17] https://p39ablog.com/2023/09/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-8-sedition-recast-implications-of-clause-150-of-the-bns-2023/
[18]
https://p39ablog.com/2023/09/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-8-sedition-recast-implications-of-clause-150-of-the-bns-2023/
[19] https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-editorial/sedition-by-another-name-equally-shady/articleshow/102917948.cms
[20]
https://portal.theedulaw.com/singlearticle?uid=468
[21]
https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/the-future-of-indias-free-speech#:~:text=The%20ideal%20ruling%20would%20be,social%20media%20and%20online%20dissent.
Article Information
EVALUATING THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF SEDITION LAW IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IPC SECTION 124A AND BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA CLAUSE 150 BY: IFRA SHAIKH
Authors: IFRA SHAIKH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.