“The law of sedition is a colonial relic — once used to crush the voice of freedom, now standing at the crossroads of liberty and national security.”
The law of sedition in India has long been a subject of intense debate, balancing the need to protect national integrity with the fundamental right to freedom of speech. Historically rooted in colonial-era legislation, sedition laws have evolved over time, reflecting the changing dynamics of Indian society and governance. This article delves into the current legal framework governing sedition, its historical origins, and the ongoing discourse surrounding its application and relevance.
Current Legal Framework: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Redefinition of Sedition
Transition from IPC to BNS
In a significant legal reform, the Indian government enacted the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in December 2023, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC). The BNS came into effect on July 1, 2024, aiming to modernize India’s criminal justice system. One of the notable changes was the omission of the term “sedition” from the legal lexicon.
Section 152: Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity
While the term “sedition” has been removed, Section 152 of the BNS introduces a provision that criminalizes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. This section penalizes any act that “excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities.” The inclusion of terms like “electronic communication” and “financial means” broadens the scope, encompassing modern methods of incitement.
However, the BNS does not provide a detailed list of activities that could be deemed as threats to national integrity, leading to concerns about potential misuse. The explanation to Section 152 clarifies that comments expressing disapproval of government measures with a view to lawful alteration do not constitute an offense under this provision.
Recent Applications and Concerns
Since the implementation of the BNS, there have been instances where Section 152 has been invoked. For example:
- In Meghalaya, two individuals were arrested for circulating an “anti-India” video on social media that incited religious hatred and supported Pakistan.
- In Bengaluru, a man was arrested for posting a video containing seditious and hateful remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
These cases highlight the ongoing tension between safeguarding national security and upholding freedom of expression.
Historical Context: The Evolution of Sedition Law in India
Colonial Origins
The concept of sedition was introduced in India during British colonial rule. Thomas Macaulay initially drafted the sedition law in 1837, but it was omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. In 1870, Sir James Stephen reintroduced it as Section 124A of the IPC to suppress dissent against the British Crown.
Notable Cases
One of the earliest cases was Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891), where the editor of a Bengali magazine was tried for criticizing the British government’s policies.
During the freedom struggle, prominent leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were charged under Section 124A for their speeches and writings advocating independence.
Post-Independence Developments
After independence, the sedition law remained in the IPC. However, its application became increasingly controversial, with critics arguing that it was used to stifle dissent and suppress political opposition.
In May 2022, the Supreme Court of India put the sedition law on hold, pending a review of its constitutionality.
Conclusion
The redefinition of sedition under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reflects an attempt to modernize India’s legal framework while addressing concerns about misuse of the law. However, the broad language of Section 152 raises questions about its potential impact on freedom of expression. As India continues to evolve as a democracy, it is imperative to strike a balance between national security and individual liberties, ensuring that laws are applied judiciously and do not become tools for suppressing legitimate dissent.
