Independent India inherited several laws from its colonial past, including the contentious sedition law, which has evolved judicially over time. Sedition laws generally prohibit actions or speech intended to incite discontent or rebellion against the state. This paper explores the shifting interpretations of sedition under the Indian Penal Code, considering that sedition, a remnant of British colonial rule, conflicts with the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to freedom of speech and expression. While this freedom is fundamental, it also comes with restrictions to prevent abuse. The author examines the legal dimensions of sedition law across various Indian legislations and provides a comparative analysis of sedition in the context of freedom of speech and expression.

Introduction
The concept of freedom of speech and expression stems from a liberal belief that individuals should be free from social coercion. However, many Indians are dissatisfied with certain government actions that they feel could foster discontent and hostility towards the government. There are claims that the government has misused the sedition law to suit its own needs and interests. This paper examines Indian sedition law, focusing on Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and its relevance in contemporary times. Before analyzing the current state of the law, the paper provides background information to explain its initial adoption. It also evaluates whether this law is justifiable under the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, or if it infringes upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a).

Section 124A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by the law. If one has no affection for a person, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence. - Mahatma Gandhi, March, 1922.

The words spoken by Mahatma Gandhi during his notable 1922 trial in colonial India succinctly capture the essence of sedition. The term "sedition" is derived from the Latin word "Seditio," which combines "sed" (meaning apart) and "itio" (meaning 'going'), thus conveying the idea of 'going away from' or deviating from established authority.

Since its inception, the sedition law has been employed to suppress voices of protest, dissent, or criticism against the government. In the 21st century, with increasing human rights concerns, there is a growing debate about the continued relevance of sedition laws in India. Recently, the jurisprudence surrounding sedition in India has been questioned, as the law is perceived as a tool for harassment by government authorities. Moreover, sedition laws have been repealed in numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, raising further scrutiny about their use and applicability today.

Sedition laws in India

Section 124A: 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.

Explanation 1: The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2: Alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section.

Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.]

The offense of sedition in India, stated above, punishes only those individual who brings or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards government by words, either spoken or written, or by sign, or by visible representation or otherwise. The intention with which the language is used is the essence of the crime of sedition. It is only when the word has pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and other that the law come into the picture.

Sedition law before independence

India's sedition law has a notable history. The Indian Penal Code, enacted in colonial India in 1860, initially lacked any provisions on sedition. The law was introduced a decade later in 1870, on the grounds that it had been omitted from the original draft of the Penal Code by mistake. Interestingly, the United Kingdom did not repeal the sedition law in Britain until 2009, with the repeal taking effect in early 2010.

Under Section 124A of Indian penal code, the offence of sedition is committed when any person by words or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law.

Under Section 124A of IPC, the offence of sedition is committed when any person by words or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law.

Three explanations added to the provision prescribe that while "disaffection" shall include disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence.

Sedition is a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence under the law, entailing life imprisonment as maximum punishment, with or without a fine.

The penal provision came in handy to muzzle nationalist voices and demands for freedom. The long list of India's national heroes who figured as accused in cases of sedition includes Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first individual to be convicted of sedition in colonial India. The British government charged him with sedition based on articles published in his Marathi newspaper, Kesari, which were alleged to incite people to obstruct the government's efforts to control a plague epidemic in India. In 1897, Tilak was sentenced to 18 months in prison by the Bombay High Court under Section 124A. The verdict was reached by a jury of nine, with six white jurors voting against Tilak and three Indian jurors voting in his favor. Subsequently, Section 124A was interpreted differently by the Federal Court, which began operating in 1937, and by the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal based in London.

Sedition law after independence

After India gained independence, the term "sedition" was removed from the Constitution in 1948 following discussions in the Constituent Assembly. K.M. Munshi proposed an amendment to eliminate "sedition" from the draft Constitution, which had listed it as a basis for restricting constitutional freedoms of speech and expression. Consequently, when the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed absolute freedom of speech and expression. Despite this constitutional change, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code remained in force.

In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru brought in the first amendment of the Constitution to limit the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and enacted Article 19(2) to empower the State put curbs in the form of "reasonable restrictions" on right to free speech.

It was during the Indira Gandhi administration that Section 124A was first designated as a cognizable offense in India. Under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came into effect in 1974 and replaced the 1898 colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure, sedition was classified as a cognizable offense. This change empowered the police to make arrests without a warrant.

Objectives of sedition law

The Indian penal code was enforced in 1860 at that time there is no provision of sedition law in Indian penal code but after 10 years sedition law was introduces and kept in 124A of Indian penal code.

During that period, Indian freedom fighters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bhagat Singh were publishing writings that challenged British rule and stirred public sentiment against the government. To address these issues, the sedition law was introduced. Its primary purpose was to suppress the voices of these freedom fighters. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was notably one of the first to be charged under this law, resulting in an 18-month prison sentence.

After independence, the Supreme Court of India established various guidelines and thresholds for sedition arrests through its precedents. However, these guidelines are often disregarded by the state, leading to arbitrary arrests. It is essential for all prosecutions under Section 124A to adhere strictly to the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in the Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) case. The intent behind the sedition law in independent India was not to punish political opponents or stifle dissent but to safeguard the nation's security and sovereignty.

In 1951, the sedition law was reinstated to reinforce the Indian government's control amid various anti-establishment revolts and insurgencies. During the early 1950s, India confronted significant challenges, including Kashmiri separatists in Jammu and Kashmir, Khalistan separatists in Punjab, insurgency in the Northeast, and the Dravida Nadu movement in parts of Southern India, primarily Tamil Nadu.

However, this law soon became a means for the ruling government to stifle dissent and arbitrarily punish political opponents. Although the courts often dismiss sedition cases where the accused have been unfairly targeted, the legal process itself serves as a form of punishment. For instance, three Kashmiri students studying at RBS Engineering College in Agra spent nearly six months in jail after being accused of celebrating Pakistan's victory over India in a cricket match in October 2021. They were eventually granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.

Comparative analysis of Sedition law

Sedition law in United Kingdom

Sedition originated in 13th-century Britain as a mechanism to control the printing press and curb criticism of the King. The Sedition Act of 1661 imposed penalties on anyone who wrote, printed, or preached words against the King. Over time, the term evolved to encompass slander and libel directed at government officials and judges. The aim was to safeguard public trust in the government and prevent disturbances or breaches of peace within society.

By the 18th century, the sedition law faced significant criticism in the U.K. Despite this, its effectiveness in controlling speech and expression was recognized and subsequently applied to India. The case of Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose was the first recorded instance of sedition prosecution in India. Encouraging the public to resist or disobey the government was deemed seditious under this legal framework.

In 1977, the Law Commission published a working paper recommending the abolition of the sedition Act. The paper argued that existing legislation already addressed the concerns covered by sedition law and that a law rooted in 'politics' rather than policy was redundant. Thirty-two years later, Section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, formally abolished the offense of sedition.

Sedition law in United States of America

In 1798, during John Adams's presidency, the Sedition Act was enacted to criminalize the making of false statements against the federal government. This legislation was intended to expire in 1801, as its justification was to protect the government during the Quasi-War.

The criminalization of sedition reemerged during World War I with the Sedition Act of 1918. Section 3 of this Act was designed to penalize anyone making false statements that interfered with U.S. war efforts, including insults directed at the U.S. government, flag, Constitution, or military.

A notable case in this context is In Re Debs, where socialist activist Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for delivering an anti-war speech. In this case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes affirmed that freedom of speech and expression could be restricted under certain circumstances.

In 1921 the Act was repealed. The case of Sullivan v New York Times upheld the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, which affected the treatment of libel. The U.S. Supreme Court held that unless a statement was made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth, the First Amendment protected the criticism of public officials.

The main reason to abolishing sedition law is the misuse of the by the authorities and it is also contradictory with the freedom of speech and expression.

Recommendation:
Most of times it was noticed that the sedition law was misused by the government, so there are some measures which must be taken to minimize the misuse of the law.

At present any Police in-charge can file a complaint and convert it into FIR in Sedition cases, which increase the chances of misuse. There should be a provision that only a high Rank Police officer (DSP) can register a complaint as well as Convert that Complaint into FIR in Sedition cases, as they are experienced and seasoned officers.

The accusation of Sedition must be backed with solid evidence, like Seditious speech could have directly caused insurrection or rebellion against the State, and that evidence must comply with the Guideline given by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Singh Vs State of Bihar (1962).

There should be the provision of Guaranteed Anticipatory Bail for any accused who is accused of Sedition with stringent terms and conditions. For example, in 2021, The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to Lakshadweep filmmaker Ayesha Sulthana in a sedition case, she was booked for claiming that the Central Government is using COVID-19 as a "bio-weapon" on the people of Lakshadweep on a Malayalam News channel during the Pandemic.

In case the accused came out innocent from the court, there should be a provision of compensation for his reputation, Time and monetary loss.

Conclusion
The sedition law was introduced in India by the British to suppress the voices of freedom fighters. After independence, the law was retained to address various threats, such as Kashmiri separatists in Jammu and Kashmir, Khalistan separatists in Punjab, insurgency in the Northeast, and the Dravida Nadu movement in parts of Southern India, particularly Tamil Nadu. However, in contemporary times, the law is often misused by the government.

The Supreme Court of India has outlined guidelines to define the offense of sedition, notably in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955). The Court emphasized that the essence of the sedition law lies in the intention behind the language used; it is only when the words have a pernicious tendency to create public disorder or disturb law and order that the law is applicable. Given that countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have abolished their sedition laws, and considering that many current sedition cases in India are baseless, it is argued that India should also consider abolishing this outdated law.

Works Cited:

1. Gandhi, M. K., 2014. The Trial Speech. In: R. Mukherjee, Ed. The Great Speeches of Modern India. Gurgaon: Random House, p. 83.
2. Oxford Dictionary
3. Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. South Asian Law Journal Annual Volume 7 – ISSN 2581-6535 2021 Edition
5. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112
6. Gauri Kashyap, Sedition in the Common Law Jurisdictions: UK, USA and India, 2021
7. Kedar Nath Sehgal v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 817