Sedition

Also called: Section 124A of the IPC, Section 124A IPC · Topic: Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Sedition was a crime from colonial times. It meant bringing, or trying to bring, hatred, contempt or disaffection (disloyalty or ill will) against the government set up by law, and it was punished under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• It matters because it is the main test of how far the State can punish speech against the government under Art. 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
• The law has gone through three stages: the Supreme Court narrowed it in 1962, put it on hold in 2022, and the IPC itself was replaced in 2024. Sedition is gone, but a new and similar offence has taken its place.

Explanation

What s.124A punished

• The crime covered words, signs or other acts that brought, or tried to bring:
• hatred,
• contempt, or

• disaffection against the government set up by law.

• It was a colonial law, made under British rule to control critics of the government.

• The words are very wide. "Disaffection" could cover almost any strong criticism. This is the main reason the law has been attacked.

How the courts narrowed it

• Read down (when a court gives a law a narrower meaning so that it stays constitutional): in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), a Constitution Bench upheld s.124A but read it down.
• The Kedar Nath limit:
• Only words that incite violence or tend to create public disorder are sedition.

• Strong criticism of the government is not sedition.

• Link to Art. 19(2): free speech can be limited only on the eight grounds in Art. 19(2). Public order is one of them. It was added by the 1st Amendment, 1951 [5]. Tying sedition to violence and disorder is what kept the law inside Art. 19(2).

From abeyance to replacement

• Abeyance (2022): in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (May 2022), the Supreme Court put s.124A in abeyance (on hold) while the government reconsidered the law.
• No new cases were to be filed under it.

• Trials that had already started were paused.

• Law Commission view (2023): the 22nd Law Commission, chaired by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, gave Report No. 279, "Usage of the Law of Sedition" on 17 April 2023. The Ministry of Home Affairs had asked for it [4].

• It recommended keeping sedition but adding safeguards against misuse.

• Replacement: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 is Act No. 45 of 2023, passed on 25 December 2023 [2]. It came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the IPC.

• Sedition is no longer an offence under the BNS [3].

The new offence: BNS s.152

• Name: "Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" [1].
• Who is punished: anyone who purposely or knowingly:
• excites or tries to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities,
• encourages feelings of separatist activities, or

• endangers India's sovereignty, unity and integrity [1].

• How the act can be done: through words, signs, visible representation, electronic communication or financial means [1].

• Punishment: life imprisonment, or prison for up to 7 years, plus a fine [1].
• Main difference from s.124A: it protects the nation (its sovereignty, unity and integrity), not the government of the day. It also needs intent ("purposely or knowingly").
• Criticism: s.152 does not write the Kedar Nath limit (incitement to violence) into the law. Critics call it "sedition by another name".

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: the word "sedition" does not appear in the Constitution. The offence was in an ordinary law (IPC s.124A). It was valid only as a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(2).
• Art. 19(2) today allows limits "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence" [6].
• 1st Amendment, 1951: added public order and incitement to an offence, and put the word "reasonable" before "restrictions" [5].

• 16th Amendment, 1963: added sovereignty and integrity of India. BNS s.152 is built on this ground.

• Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (2023): the list of eight grounds is complete. Any sedition-type law must fit one of them.

• Who uses it: the police file cases and the courts test them. Parliament changed the law through the BNS, 2023.
• Timeline in practice:

Year	Event
1962	Kedar Nath Singh: s.124A upheld but limited to incitement to violence or public disorder
May 2022	S.G. Vombatkere: s.124A put in abeyance
17 April 2023	Law Commission Report No. 279: keep sedition, add safeguards [4]
25 December 2023	BNS (Act No. 45 of 2023) passed [2]
1 July 2024	BNS comes into force. Sedition is dropped and s.152 is added [3]

• Related test for speech: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) set out three levels of speech:
• discussion is protected,
• advocacy is protected, even for an unpopular cause,
• only incitement that is closely linked to public disorder can be curbed. This matches the Kedar Nath line.

Don't confuse with

• Criticism of the government: this is protected free speech under Art. 19(1)(a). After Kedar Nath (1962), words become sedition only when they incite violence or public disorder, not when they are harsh.
• BNS s.152: it targets acts against India's sovereignty, unity and integrity (secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities). Sedition targeted disaffection against the government. s.152 is the replacement, but it is not called "sedition".
• IT Act s.66A: Shreya Singhal (2015) struck it down because it was vague and overbroad. s.124A was upheld but read down in Kedar Nath (1962), and was later only put on hold (2022).
• Hate speech (BNS s.196, formerly IPC s.153A): this punishes promoting enmity between groups in society. Sedition was about speech against the State's government.

Prelims Hooks

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): a Constitution Bench upheld IPC s.124A but read it down to cover only incitement to violence or public disorder. Trap: the Court did not strike it down.
• S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (May 2022): put s.124A in abeyance. No new cases could be filed and pending trials were paused.
• Law Commission Report No. 279 (2023): the 22nd Law Commission (Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi), asked by the MHA, recommended keeping sedition with safeguards [4]. Trap: it did not recommend repeal.
• BNS, 2023: Act No. 45 of 2023, passed 25 December 2023 [2], in force from 1 July 2024. Sedition is not an offence under it [3].
• BNS s.152: punishment is life imprisonment, or up to 7 years, plus fine. It covers electronic communication and financial means [1].
• The ground behind s.152, "sovereignty and integrity of India", was added to Art. 19(2) by the 16th Amendment, 1963, not the 1st Amendment.

Mains Points

• Sedition reform is unfinished: the BNS dropped the word "sedition", but s.152 uses broad terms like "subversive activities" and "feelings of separatist activities". It does not write in the Kedar Nath limit.

• Possible reforms: put the incitement-to-violence test into the law itself, require police to get approval before filing a case, and track conviction rates.

• Liberty versus order: the State needs to protect national unity, but a vague offence creates a chilling effect, which means people stay silent out of fear of long trials.

• Shreya Singhal's line between discussion, advocacy and incitement gives the best test for whether a limit is in proportion to the harm.

• Any limit must stay within the eight Art. 19(2) grounds, and that list is complete (Kaushal Kishor, 2023).

• Keep or repeal? The Law Commission (Report No. 279) wanted sedition kept with safeguards [4]. Parliament removed the name but kept a similar offence. A GS-II answer can weigh both views: the security needs of the State against the democratic right to dissent.

Related concepts

• Right to freedom
• Freedom of speech and expression
• Freedom of the press
• Reasonable restrictions
• Restrictions on freedom of speech
• Romesh Thappar case
• Kedar Nath Singh case
• Criminal defamation
• Shreya Singhal case
• Bijoe Emmanuel case

Read more

• Freedom of speech and expression