Supreme Court’s Revival of Sedition Trials:
The Supreme Court of India, in its May 2026 clarification in Kamran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that lower courts are permitted to proceed with trials and appeals under Section 124A (Sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on the condition that the accused persons explicitly consent to the proceedings.
- The clarification has reignited discussions over the colonial-era sedition law, even as its constitutional validity remains under challenge before the Supreme Court.
- A Colonial Relic: Section 124A was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1837 but was omitted when the IPC was first enacted in 1860.
In 1890, sedition was included as an offence under section 124A IPC through the Special Act XVII to suppress the rising nationalist dissent. It carries harsh penalties, including life imprisonment. - Use Against Freedom Fighters: The law was extensively used as a weapon against prominent Indian independence leaders, most notably Bal Gangadhar Tilak (tried three times for his writings in Kesari) and Mahatma Gandhi (for his articles in Young India in 1922).
- Gandhi famously described Section 124A as “the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
Judicial Pronouncements: - Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that mere criticism of the government or creation of disaffection against it cannot justify restrictions on free speech unless it threatens the security of the State or seeks to overthrow it.
- Subsequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951), and the Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) declared that Section 124A of the IPC was primarily a tool for colonial masters to quell discontent in the country and declared the provision unconstitutional.
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but severely restricted its application.
- The Court ruled that mere strong criticism of the government is not sedition unless it is accompanied by an incitement to violence or an intention to create public disorder.
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court held that the mere casual raising of anti-national slogans a few times by a couple of individuals, which did not lead to any public response or violence, does not amount to sedition.
- The S.G. Vombatkere Freeze (2022): In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court placed Section 124A in complete abeyance.
- The Court observed that the law was engineered for a colonial regime and was entirely out of sync with the modern democratic social milieu.
- The Court directed that no fresh First Information Reports (FIRs) were to be registered, no investigations were to continue, and no coercive measures taken under Section 124A.
- If a fresh case was erroneously registered, affected citizens were granted the liberty to directly approach the appropriate courts for immediate relief.
- All pending trials, appeals, and proceedings across the country concerning sedition were to be kept strictly in abeyance.
- The Court echoed the doctrine from I.R. Coelho versus State of Tamil Nadu (2007) that laws must be in step with the “march of time.”
- Transition: With the repeal of the IPC, the sedition framework has transitioned into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
- Removal of the Word “Sedition”: The term sedition (Rajdroh) has been consciously dropped from the new legal lexicon.
- Section 152 of BNS: The BNS introduces a provision penalizing acts that endanger the “sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.”
- Shift in Focus: While Section 124A of the IPC penalized disaffection towards the Government, Section 152 of the BNS shifts the focus to penalizing acts that threaten the State (India) itself specifically criminalizing secessionist activities, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, with punishment up to life imprisonment or seven years with fine.
