Sedition 124A
Singing Faiz's 'Hum Dekhenge' is 'Sedition': Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial
At an event organised last week in memory of actor and activist Vira Sathidar, a group of young cultural activists sang the lyrics of Faiz’s famous Hum Dekhenge. The Nagpur police have now booked the organisers and the event’s speaker under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to sedition, along with other sections of the BNS, including Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and Section 353 (statements conducive to public mischief).
https://thewire.in/government/faiz-ahmed-faiz-hum-dekhenge-sedition-vira-sathidar
Sathidar, an accomplished actor, prolific writer, journalist, and political thinker, died on April 13, 2021, after battling COVID-19 for over a week. Since his passing, his wife, Pushpa, has organised an annual memorial. This year, social activist Uttam Jagirdar was invited to speak. Although the FIR does not name individuals explicitly, it refers to the event’s organiser and speaker.
Despite an ongoing stay by the Supreme Court on the application of sedition charges, the Nagpur police have booked the organisers and speakers under the section. On May 11, 2022, the apex court had issued a historic order, staying all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code until the sedition law’s re-examination was complete. Since then, the BJP-led government has replaced the IPC with the BNS. However, the new law does not eliminate the sedition provision. Instead, the BNS introduces Section 152, which closely resembles the sedition law without explicitly using the word ‘sedition’.
19/05/2025
https://thewire.in/law/sedition-free-speech-law-commission-supreme-court
The 22nd Law Commission of India recently submitted its final report (“Usage of the Law of Sedition”) on the constitutionality of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Law Commission reports exert considerable influence on both the government and the Supreme Court and, given that the provision’s constitutionality is pending, it is important to closely read a document that will likely form an important part of any future judgement on the matter.
The report walks the reader through sedition law’s history in India, the Law Commission’s previous reports that discussed the law, Constituent Assembly debates, and the courts’ public-order jurisprudence. After discussing the threats to India’s security and the law’s “alleged” misuse (the Commission passes the buck onto the police instead of the “political class,” as if the police are an autonomous body) and undertaking a wide-ranging comparative survey of sedition law in diverse jurisdictions (the UK, US, Australia, and Canada!), the report concludes with why the law should be retained on the books.
It adds a series of recommendations that ignore the Supreme Court’s post-Kedar Nath jurisprudence, set out vague procedural guidelines, and increase the punishment for the offence.
05/06/2023
The 22nd Law Commission of India headed by former Chief Justice of Karnataka high court Ritu Raj Awasthi has argued against repealing the controversial sedition law, instead saying it should be retained with certain changes.
https://thewire.in/law/law-commission-says-sedition-law-should-stay-recommends-increased-punishment
The Commission has recommended that the scheme of punishment under the law should be increased. At the moment, the punished prescribed is imprisonment up to three years or a fine. The report now says this should be increased to life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years or a fine, LiveLaw reported.
The Commission has also suggested changes to the phrasing of the Section, from what it is now:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in lndia, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
to:
“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in lndia, with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
2/06/2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enL_OqVv-20&feature=youtu.be
Feb 4, 2022
More than 13,000 Indians, trapped by a colonial law, are suspended in a legal blackhole. Who are they? Why do they face prison sentences for things they have said or done under a law that most democratic countries have abolished? How do the State and the courts use this archaic law? Join our panel discussion today at 8pm featuring Rebecca John https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enL_OqVv-20&t=1261s , Varun Grover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enL_OqVv-20&t=2325s and Aakar Patel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enL_OqVv-20&t=1747s with our Editor Databases Lub hyathi Rangarajan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enL_OqVv-20&t=160s and Samar Halarnkar
Genesis of Section 124A https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/understanding-sedition/
The so-called Great Indian Rebellion, also called the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny by the British, happened during the rule of the English East India Company. This upset the British Parliament sufficiently, to cause the ruling British monarch Queen Victoria, to issue a proclamation in 1858 that India would be governed by and in the name of “the Crown”. Thereby, the British Territory of India and the British Government of India, were both embodied in the ruling British Monarch. Every Indian had the political status of being a subject of the ruling British Monarch.
The British used Sedition law primarily to suppress writings, speeches and protests of prominent Indian nationalists and freedom fighters, howsoever they expressed dissent with British colonial rule. Thus, Section 124A was all about British control over Indian subjects. The British used surveillance and police intelligence agencies to detect, trace and punish what they saw as incitement to rebellion against British rule.
Eminent lawyer K.M.Munshi, who was also a member of the Drafting Committee, spoke [7:64:164 & 7:64:167]: “… the word ‘sedition’ is of doubtful and varying import … it is an equivocal word”. Munshi argued that the word “sedition” should be removed from the Draft Constitution, because “… it is a word which has created considerable doubt in the minds of not only members of this House, but of Courts of Law all over the world”. He also spoke that sedition “… was sometimes so widely construed” that criticism of a District Magistrate was considered as sedition, and presciently said:“… sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of government”, and “… now that we have a democratic government, a line must be drawn between criticism of a government which should be welcome, and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which civilised life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State”.
18/06/2022
read more