*Trace the judicial evolution of sedition law in India from the Bal Gangadhar Tilak trials to the Supreme Court's 2022 stay. What does this trajectory reveal about the relationship between colonial legacy and constitutional democracy?*

Q. Trace the judicial evolution of sedition law in India from the Bal Gangadhar Tilak trials to the Supreme Court's 2022 stay. What does this trajectory reveal about the relationship between colonial legacy and constitutional democracy? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Sedition, inserted as Section 124A IPC in 1870, punished "disaffection" towards the government established by law. Its journey from Tilak's colonial convictions to the Supreme Court's 2022 stay tracks India's own passage from subject to citizen.

Colonial phase — law as an instrument of empire (1897–1922) - Tilak was tried thrice; convicted in 1897 and again in 1908 for his Kesari articles and transported to Mandalay, though no act of violence was proved — only "disaffection" [1] - His 1916 acquittal, with M.A. Jinnah as counsel, showed even colonial courts could be pushed to narrow the offence [1] - Gandhi's 1922 guilty plea — calling 124A the "prince among the political sections of the IPC" — converted the charge into a badge of nationalist honour

Constitutional phase — judicial reading down - Post-1950, the provision had to survive Article 19(1)(a), saved only by the 19(2) grounds of public order and security, widened by the First Amendment, 1951 - Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): a five-judge Bench upheld 124A but read it down — only speech with a tendency to incite violence or public disorder is seditious; strong criticism is not [2] - Later rulings extended this logic, holding that mere sloganeering without incitement falls outside the section

Retreat and replacement - May 2022: the Court kept 124A in abeyance — pending trials stayed, fresh FIRs barred — an unprecedented suspension acknowledging a gap between the 1962 ratio and actual policing [3] - 2023: challenge referred to a larger Bench; the Law Commission's 279th Report urged retention with procedural safeguards [2] - 2024: Section 152, BNS replaced sedition, reframing the offence around sovereignty, unity and integrity, while expressly protecting lawful disapproval [4]

The trajectory shows a colonial statute surviving not by democratic endorsement but by continuous judicial dilution — courts, not legislatures, carried the constitutional burden. Genuine decolonisation of criminal law now requires that Section 152 be applied strictly along the Kedar Nath incitement test, with safeguards before registration, so that dissent remains protected while sovereignty stays secure.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Ministry of Culture, Indian Culture portal — "The Trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak" — Tilak's 1897/1908 Kesari trials, Mandalay sentence, 1916 defence 2. Law Commission of India, 279th Report, Usage of the Law of Sedition (2023) — Kedar Nath Singh (1962) ratio; recommendation to retain 124A with safeguards 3. Supreme Court of India — S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, order dated 11 May 2022 — stay on Section 124A, pending cases in abeyance, no fresh FIRs 4. India Code — The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023) — Section 152 on acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity