THE FROZEN SEDITION LAW : SECTION 124A IPC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep court proceedings under section 124A of IPC in abeyance has the effect of temporarily erasing the colonial provision from the statute book while the union reexamines it. It was argued in court that nearly 13000 people were already in jail under the sedition provision.

National crime records bureau (NCRB) report says 356 cases of sedition under section 124A of IPC had been registered and 548 people arrested between 2015 &2020 with just 6 convictions.

Section 124 A of IPC, which criminalizes any speech, writing, or representation that excites disaffection against the government.

The Indian experiences shows that whenever the court dilutes the harshness of penal provisions in a balancing approach, instead of striking down the entire provision, the instrumentalities of the state (police, prosecution, and court) continue to overuse or misuse the provision.

The judgment of the top court in Kedar Nath Singh  V. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955) is a case where the apex court upheld the validity of sedition law only when the acts involving intention to create disorder or disturbance of law or incitement of violence. But the states on its own interpretations book anyone who criticized the government in strong and strident language (merely for words, innocent tweets, or harmless jokes).  

The court suspended the said provision in its present form until further orders. Hence for the persons against whom fresh cases have been made can seek bail using the Supreme Court’s order. With this order, bail has become the rule. A person cannot be incarcerated or charged under the currently nonexistent penal provision. The court has made it clear that it “hopes and expects ” the centre and state to restrain from registering FIRs, continuing investigations, or take coercive measures under sedition 124A while the reconsideration was on.

It is clear that the union of India agrees with the prima facia opinion expressed by the apex court that the rigours of section 124A  IPC is not in tune with the current times and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the UOI may reconsider the provision of law as per the court's observation in page 10 of its order. However, the bench did not give a deadline for the reconsideration exercise, aware that it may involve a legislative process.

The question now before the court is whether it ought to overrule a decision rendered by the 5 judges constitutional bench in 60 years ago. If it chooses to do so and strikes down section 124A as unconstitutional, it may prevent misuse of the provision.

However the government may choose to prevent such a situation by amending the provision thereby, the offence will cover only those acts which affect the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the state.