Ajay Kumar: Created a new article

2023-08-12T05:26:50Z

Created a new article

New page

{{Short description|Law on the punishment for sedition}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}

'''Section 124A''' of the [[Indian Penal Code]] lays down the punishment for [[sedition]]. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the [[British Raj]]. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870. The then [[British government of India]] feared that the [[Khilafat movement]] on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against them. Particularly after the successful suppression of {{cns|[[Wahhabism|Wahabi]]/[[Wali]]ullah Movement|reason=Saudi ultracons in India 1800s?|date=June 2022}}, the need was felt for such a law. Throughout the Raj, the section was used to suppress [[political dissent]] in favour of [[Independence of India|independence]], including [[Lokmanya Tilak]] and [[Mahatma Gandhi]], both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.

The section kept drawing criticism in the independent India as well for being a hindrance to [[free speech]]. Sedition was made a [[cognisable offence]] for the first time in history in India, during the tenure of PM [[Indira Gandhi]] in 1973, that is, arrest without a [[police warrant]] was now permissible.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Chndrachud|first=Abhinav|date=2021-02-22|title=The Case to Amend Sedition Law, India's Self-Inflicted Wound|url=https://www.theleaflet.in/the-case-to-amend-sedition-law-indias-self-inflicted-wound/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-05|website=TheLeaflet|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|last=Utkarsh|first=Anand|date=2021-03-04|title=Disagreeing with govt is not sedition, says SC|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/disagreeing-with-govt-is-not-sedition-says-sc-101614809724448.html|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-05|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref> In 1962 the Supreme Court of India interpreted the section to apply only if there is, say, "incitement to violence" or "overthrowing a democratically elected government through violent means".<ref name=":0" />

As of 11 May 2022 This law has been put on temporary hold by [[Supreme Court of India]] citing re-examination.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-05-12 |title=SC puts sedition trials on hold until Govt re-examines it, says affected can seek relief |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-sedition-section-124-a-centre-7910771/ |access-date=2022-05-12 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

== Text ==
'''Section 124A. Sedition'''
: 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 India, 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.

:*''Explanation 1''.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
:*''Explanation 2''.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
:*''Explanation 3''.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641007/ | title=Section 124A in The Indian Penal Code | publisher=Indian Kanoon | accessdate=22 May 2019}}</ref>

== Development and Current Status ==
{{Quote box
|title = Historical text (1870)
|quote = '''Section 124A. Exciting disaffection'''
Whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, excites, or attempts to excite, feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
:''Explanation:'' Such a disapprobation of the measures of the Government as is compatible with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority of the Government, and to support the lawful authority, of the Government, against unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority, is not disaffection. therefore, the making of comments on the methods of the Government, with the intention of against unlawful a exciting only this species of disapprobation, is not an offence within this clause.<ref name="History">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WnnxzkV2mk0C&q=chapter+VI+Indian+Penal+Code&pg=PA9 | title=Textbook on the Indian Penal Code | publisher=Universal Law Publishing | author=Gaur, Krishna Deo | year=2009 | pages=220, 226–227 | isbn=978-8175347038}}</ref>
|author =
|source =
|width = 30%
|align = right
}}
The section related to sedition initially had its place in the code, as Section 113, when [[Thomas Babington Macaulay]] drafted the Penal Code in 1837. However, for reasons unknown, it was omitted from the actual Code. It was finally added in 1870 on the suggestion of [[James Fitzjames Stephen]], at the time handling legal issues in the colonial Government of Indian.<ref name="History"/> Due to increasing [[Wahhabism|Wahabi activities]], and fearing that Muslim preachers would incite religious war in the Indian subcontinent, the Raj introduced this section under the title "Exciting disaffection".<ref name="Bhatia"/>

Stephen's version of 1870 was amended to a large extent through IPC Amendment Act of 1898. The current section stands very much similar to this 1898's section; however minor alterations were made at various points in India's colonial and post-colonial history—in 1937, 1948, 1950, and by Part B States (Law) Act, 1951.<ref name="History"/>

A case in 1958, ''Ram Nandan v State,'' heard by the Allahabad High Court declared the sedition law void.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kumar|first=Ayush|date=3 March 2021|title=Section 124A: An Archaic Way to Stifle Dissent In India|url=https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/section-124a-an-archaic-way-to-stifle-dissent-in-india|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-05|website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news|language=en}}</ref> The Punjab high court had also struck down the law.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bhatia|first=Gautam|date=2016-01-24|title=The nine lives of the sedition law|url=https://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/b9neXYTVckT0UBwvU7Ev4K/The-nine-lives-of-the-sedition-law.html|access-date=2021-03-05|website=mint|language=en}}</ref> A Supreme Court judgement in 1962 brought back sedition into the Constitution, interpreting the section to say that it only applies if there is "incitement to violence".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Noorani|first=A. G.|date=15 January 2021|title=How a Supreme Court judgment brought back the sedition law in India|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/how-a-supreme-court-judgment-brought-back-the-sedition-law-in-india/article33481062.ece|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-05|website=Frontline|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0" />

Sedition was made cognizable for the first time during the tenure of Indira Gandhi via the [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|1973 Code of Criminal Procedure]] (CrPC) which replaced the 1898 CrPC.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" />

On May 11, 2022, the [[Supreme Court of India]] suspended the colonial era law. The court said that the law has been misused by governments to quash dissent and that it was not in tune with the times. Due to this, hundreds of people who were jailed under the law have become eligible for [[bail]]. The ruling does not overturn the sedition law, the law has only been put on temporary hold and no further cases can be registered under this law until the ongoing review by the government is completed.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kumar |first1=Hari |last2=Yasir |first2=Sameer |date=2022-05-11 |title=India's Top Court Suspends Colonial-Era Sedition Law |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/world/asia/india-sedition-law-suspended.html |access-date=2022-05-11 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court order brings hope for thousands jailed on controversial colonial-era sedition law in India |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sedition-law-india-supreme-court-order-halts-colonial-era-law/ |access-date=2022-05-11 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Swati Gupta and Rhea Mogul |title=India's top court halts use of controversial sedition law in rebuke to the government |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/india/india-sedition-law-paused-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=2022-05-11 |website=CNN|date=11 May 2022 }}</ref>

== Development in 1979 ==
India has officially accepted and endorsed the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR), affirming its commitment to upholding globally acknowledged principles for safeguarding freedom of expression.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tyagi |first=Ashwani |title=USE AND MISUSE OF SEDITION LAW: SECTION 124A OF IPC : |url=https://www.jurisacademy.com/use-and-misuse-of-sedition-law-section-124A-of-IPC |access-date=2023-07-27 |website=JURIS ACADEMY |language=en}}</ref>

== Notable cases ==
=== Pre-independence ===
The first known registered case under the section was in [[Calcutta High Court]] in 1891; ''Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose''. Bose's article, published in his own [[Bengali language|Bengali]] magazine ''Bangobasi'', criticized the [[Age of Consent Act, 1891]]. The Act was described as "forced Europeanisation" and a gag on Hindus, who were described as legally incapable and prevented from rebelling against the Act. The authorities put forth a claim that Bose had incited rebellion; in his instructions to the jury, the Chief Justice [[William Comer Petheram]] explained the meaning of "disaffection" as "a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred" and linked it with disobedience towards the government.<ref name="Bhatia">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fIM8DwAAQBAJ&q=Queen+Empress+v+Jogendra+Chunder+Bose&pg=PT16 | title=Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution | publisher=Oxford University Press | author=Bhatia, Gautam | year=2016 | isbn=9780199089529}}</ref> Bose was nevertheless released on bail, and the case was dropped.<ref name="Tilak">{{cite web | url=https://www.livelaw.in/a-look-back-at-tilaks-sedition-trials/ | title=A Look Back At Tilak's Sedition Trials | publisher=Live Law | date=8 July 2018 | accessdate=28 May 2019 | author=Saxena, Namit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/panel-discussion-on-free-speech-and-sedition-in-a-democracy/article8393059.ece | title=Panel Discussion on Free Speech and Sedition in a Democracy | work=The Hindu | date=24 March 2016 | accessdate=28 May 2019}}</ref>

The sedition trial of 1897 against [[Lokmanya Tilak]] is historically famous. Tilak, a lawyer by training, was also politically active in support of independence. He established and published two dailies—''Kesari'' in [[Marathi language|Marathi]] and ''Mahratta'' in English; both being published from [[Pune]]. In 1894, Professor R. P. Karkaria presented his paper on the [[Maratha Empire|Maratha king]] [[Shivaji]] to the [[The Asiatic Society of Mumbai|Royal Asiatic Society in Bombay]]. This turned into an annual celebration commemorating the anniversary of Shivaji's coronation. Three years later, Tilak published reports of this celebration, as "Shivaji's Utterances"; this essay doubled as an attack on the colonial government. Justice [[Arthur Strachey]], who presided over Tilak's case, widened the understanding of Section 124A. Under Strachey's definition, the attempt to excite "feelings of enmity" against government was also a form of sedition. Tilak was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.<ref name="Bhatia"/><ref name="Tilak"/> Tilak again faced charges against sedition for two ''Kesari'' articles, titled "The Country's Misfortune" (12 May 1908) and "These Remedies Are Not Lasting" (9 June 1908). Once again Tilak was found guilty under the newly drafted section 124A, and sentenced to six years of imprisonment in [[British rule in Burma|Burma]].<ref name="Tilak"/> Despite the verdict, this trial, according to historian Mithi Mukherjee, "marked a fundamental discursive rupture in the history of empire and paved the way for mass anticolonial movements under the leadership of Gandhi.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mukherjee|first=Mithi|title=Sedition, Law, and the British Empire in India: The Trial of Tilak (1908)|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1743872116685034?journalCode=lcha|journal=Law, Culture and the Humanities|year=2020 |volume=16| issue = 3|pages=454–476|doi=10.1177/1743872116685034 |s2cid=152184820 |via=SCOPUS}}</ref> In 1922, [[Mahatma Gandhi]]'s three articles for ''[[Young India]]'' resulted into his and [[Shankarlal Banker]]'s imprisonment under the sedition section. While appearing in court, Gandhi referred to Section 124A as the "prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.livemint.com/politics/news/republic-of-dissent-gandhi-s-sedition-trial-1548352744498.html | title=Republic of dissent: Gandhi's sedition trial | publisher=Live Mint | date=25 January 2019 | accessdate=29 May 2019}}</ref>

===Post-independence===
In 1951, the [[Punjab High Court]] ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the [[Allahabad High Court]], which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech. The Government of India appealed to the [[Supreme Court of India]], which in 1962 ruled that speeches against the government or political parties was not illegal, while upholding it as applicable to [[Separatist movements of India|separatism by persuasion or force]]; this pronouncement had the effect of diluting the law.<ref name="ETbin">{{cite news |title=Anti-sedition law needs the bin |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-editorials/anti-sedition-law-needs-the-bin/ |accessdate=27 May 2019 |work=Economic Times |date=15 January 2019}}</ref><ref name="tribune1">{{cite news |last1=Prakash |first1=Satya |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/to-repeal-or-not-nehruvian-dilemma-on-sedition-law/650444.html |accessdate=27 May 2019 |title= To repeal or not: Nehruvian dilemma on sedition law |work=10 September 2018 |issue=The Tribune}}</ref>

During the 21st century, various notable authors, creative professionals, activists and politicians have been charged with sedition under Section 124A. Cases include the then [[Vishva Hindu Parishad|Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)]] general secretary [[Praveen Togadia]] (2003), [[Simranjit Singh Mann]] (2005), [[Binayak Sen]] (2007), author [[Arundhati Roy]] (2010), cartoonist [[Aseem Trivedi]] (2012),<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-five-high-profile-sedition-cases-in-india/20120913.htm#1 | title=5 high profile sedition cases in India | publisher=Rediff | date=13 September 2012 | accessdate=28 May 2019}}</ref> student activist [[Rinshad Reera]]<ref>{{Cite web|author=Scroll Staff|title=Kerala: Two students of Malappuram college arrested on charges of sedition|url=https://scroll.in/latest/914251/kerala-two-students-of-malappuram-college-arrested-on-charges-of-sedition|access-date=2021-06-11|website=Scroll.in|language=en-US}}</ref> (2019), climate activist [[Disha Ravi]] (2020).<ref>{{Cite web|last=SAYEED|first=VIKHAR AHMED|title=Disha Ravi, an environmental activist from Bengaluru, arrested by Delhi police and charged with sedition for 'formulation and dissemination' of a toolkit to aid protesting farmers which was shared by Greta Thunberg|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/dispatches/disha-ravi-an-environmental-activist-from-bengaluru-arrested-by-delhi-police-and-charged-with-sedition-for-formulation-and-dissemination-of-a-toolkit-to-aid-protesting-farmers-which-was-shared-by-greta-thunberg/article33841330.ece|access-date=2021-06-11|website=Frontline|date=15 February 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

== Low conviction rate ==

Between 2014 and 2019, 326 sedition cases were filed in India, charge sheets were filed in 141 cases which resulted in only 6 convictions.<ref name=sed1>[https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/326-sedition-cases-filed-in-india-between-2014-19-only-6-convictions 326 sedition cases filed in india between 2014 19 only 6 convictions], freepressjournal.in, 19 July 2021.</ref>

On 15 July 2021, the [[Chief Justice of India]] [[N. V. Ramana|N.V. Ramana]] drew attention to the fact that the rate of conviction under sedition is very low and that this law has been misused by the executive powers.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Rajagopal|first=Krishnadas|date=2021-07-15|title=Why do you need the 'colonial law' of sedition after 75 years of Independence, CJI asks govt.|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/is-this-law-necessary-sc-seeks-centres-response-on-pleas-challening-sedition-law/article35336402.ece|access-date=2021-07-20|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> Some critics of the law further elaborate on this point by claiming that the purpose of this law is not to convict the charged, but to harass and to silence critics of the government by the means of a long drawn out process.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|last=Gupta|first=Shekhar|date=2021-07-17|title=Is India made of porcelain? Question CJI Ramana should ask Modi govt at next sedition hearing|url=https://theprint.in/national-interest/is-india-made-of-porcelain-question-cji-ramana-should-ask-modi-govt-at-next-sedition-hearing/697684/|access-date=2021-07-20|website=ThePrint|language=en-US}}</ref>

== Criticism ==

In post-independence India, Section 124A came under criticism at numerous intervals, being singled out for its curbing of free speech. When the [[First Amendment of the Constitution of India]] was passed in 1951, Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] proposed to "get rid of it [Section 124A]" as written, and favoured handling sedition-related by other means.<ref name="tribune1"/> Several opinion-makers have called for the abolishing of sedition laws in the context of the [[JNU sedition row|2016 protests]] at the [[Jawaharlal Nehru University]].<ref name="mint1">{{cite news |title=Why India's sedition law needs to be buried |url=https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/IQ2o3mXhLJ8kIzlVrStpZK/Why-Indias-sedition-law-needs-to-be-buried.html |accessdate=29 May 2019 |work=Mint |date=18 January 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="hindtimes1">{{cite news |title=The Indian State must scrap the sedition law |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/the-indian-state-must-scrap-the-sedition-law/story-lmWUTEdtmm2LzUYCNiJGpN.html |accessdate=29 May 2019 |work=Hindustan Times |date=15 January 2019 |language=en}}</ref> In 2018, the [[Law Commission of India]] published a consultation paper that asked for a possible amendment or repeal of the law.<ref name="LCIrethink">{{cite news |last1=Rajagopal |first1=Krishnadas |title=Law Commission calls for re-think on sedition clause |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/law-commission-backs-dissent-in-a-democracy/article24822850.ece |accessdate=27 May 2019 |work=The Hindu |date=30 August 2018 |language=en-IN}}</ref> During the [[2019 Indian general election]], the opposition [[Indian National Congress]] (INC) included a specific proposal to abolish Section 124A in their manifesto.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha-2019/story/congress-manifesto-sedition-law-section-124a-1492013-2019-04-02 | title=Congress manifesto promises to do away with British-era sedition law | publisher=India Today | date=2 April 2019 | accessdate=29 May 2019}}</ref> However, while the INC-led [[United Progressive Alliance]] had been in power (2004–2014), the section had remained intact and was used to file charges on various citizens; following 2012-2013 protests against [[Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant]] in [[Tamil Nadu]], an "astonishing number" of citizens faced trial under Section 124A: 23,000 were in temporary custody, of whom 9,000 were arrested only for sedition.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37182206 | title=Why India needs to get rid of its sedition law | publisher=BBC | date=29 August 2016 | accessdate=29 May 2019 | author=Biswas, Soutik}}</ref>

Critics of the law claim that sedition is an outdated law from the colonial era and it curtails the [[freedom of speech]] and that it has no place in a modern democracy.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Reema Omer|first=Dawn com|title=India's sedition law is just another colonial hangover and has no place in a democracy|url=https://scroll.in/article/952017/indias-sedition-law-is-just-another-colonial-hangover-and-has-no-place-in-a-democracy|access-date=2021-06-11|website=Scroll.in|language=en-US}}</ref> Critics further point out that the law was introduced by the colonial government in India to curtail dissent and that Britain has since abolished this law in 2009. The then [[Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State|Parliamentary Under Secretary of State]] at the [[Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Justice]] of UK, [[Claire Ward]] said:<blockquote>''"The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom. Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.”'' <ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-02-14|title=Sedition law in UK abolished in 2009, continues in India|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world/sedition-law-in-uk-abolished-in-2009-continues-in-india/story-Pkrvylv6J0T3ddY8uqvKsO.html|access-date=2021-06-11|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref></blockquote>The [[Editors Guild of India|Editor's Guild of India]] has called this a ''"draconian law"'', and has demanded the repeal of this law and has also expressed that ''"this law has no space in any modern liberal democracy"''. The Indian Women Press Corps (IWPC) also has said:<blockquote>''“We have noticed, with dismay, a growing trend in India in recent times where both central and state governments have routinely slapped sedition charges on journalists for articles, tweets, Facebook posts that criticise government policies…In January 2021, IWPC founder member [[Mrinal Pande]] and some other journalists were booked for sedition for tweets relating to farmers’ protest.”'' <ref>{{Cite web|agency=TNN|date=Jun 5, 2021|title=Editors Guild welcomes Supreme Court verdict on sedition case against Vinod Dua {{!}} India News - Times of India|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/editors-guild-welcomes-supreme-court-verdict-on-sedition-case-against-vinod-dua/articleshow/83250931.cms|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Times of India|language=en}}</ref></blockquote>The [[Press Club of India]] has condemned the use of this law by state governments against senior journalists for the coverage of the [[2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest|farmers protests]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Journalists' Bodies Slam Sedition FIRs Against Editors, Reporters for Farmers' Rally Coverage|url=https://thewire.in/media/editors-guild-press-club-sedition-farmers-tractor-rally-republic-day-media|access-date=2021-06-11|website=The Wire}}</ref> Furthermore, some critics of the law say that the purpose of this law is not to convict, but for the government to harass its critics through the drawn out process.<ref name=":2" />

== Alternatives ==
The following laws in India address the same aspects covered by the sedition law—<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Chaturvedi|first=Arpan|date=11 May 2021|title=Six Decades Later, Challenge To Sedition Law Is Back In The Supreme Court|url=https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/six-decades-later-challenge-to-sedition-law-is-back-in-the-supreme-court|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=BloombergQuint}}</ref>

* [[Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act|Unlawful Activities Act]]
* Public Safety Acts (such as the [[Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978|JK PSA]])
* [[National Security Act (India)|National Security Act]]

== Amending and repealing Section 124A ==
Numerous critics, students,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Sharma|first=Aditya|date=22 March 2021|title=India's Absurd Sedition Law – And What It Enables|url=https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/indias-absurd-sedition-law-and-what-it-enables/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=thediplomat.com|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Aishwarya|first=Narayanan|date=2015|title=A Theoretical Analysis of the Law on Sedition in India|url=https://journals.christuniversity.in/index.php/culj/article/view/490|journal=Christ University Law Journal|language=en|volume=4|issue=1|pages=87–101|doi=10.12728/culj.6.5|issn=2278-4322|doi-access=free}}</ref> former government employees including [[Indian Police Service]] and [[Indian Administrative Service]] officers,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Azad|first=Yashovardhan|date=2021-07-20|title=Scrap sedition. Stop UAPA's misuse|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/scrap-sedition-stop-uapa-s-misuse-101626779794925.html|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=Hindustan Times}}</ref> legal thinkers and judges,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Rajagopal|first=Krishnadas|date=2021-07-15|title=Sedition law {{!}} Supreme Court sends strong message to government|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sedition-law-supreme-court-sends-strong-message-to-government/article35348364.ece|access-date=2021-07-22|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Dwivedi|first=Rakesh|date=20 July 2021|title=Don't let sedition law make a mockery of democracy|url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/dont-let-sedition-law-make-a-mockery-of-democracy-285629|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=Tribuneindia News Service|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Sarna|first=Ayush|date=15 October 2019|title=Amend sedition law to check its misuse|url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/amend-sedition-law-to-check-its-misuse-847278|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=Tribuneindia News Service|language=en}}</ref> scholars,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Singh|first=Anushka|date=2021-07-17|title=Why Supreme Court must strike down sedition law entirely|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sedition-law-supreme-court-incite-violence-against-government-7408536/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref> human rights and civil liberty advocates,<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|date=3 June 2021|title=Sedition: Why does India follow a law that the world has junked?|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sedition-why-does-india-follow-a-law-that-the-world-has-junked/articleshow/83205097.cms|url-access=registration|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-22|website=The Times of India}}</ref> journalists,<ref name=":4" /> and so on have commented against the sedition law, calling for it to be scrapped or undergo amendments.<ref name=":3" />

A law student proposes "the following modification to the law is suggested. Section 124A should be retained subject to three conditions: first, that, the offender must be in a position of authority...; second, that, the offending words must be understood in context...; and, third, they should have a tendency to actually cause violence or disorder...."<ref name=":5" />

In 2021, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, petitioned the Supreme Court against the law. The court admitted the case.<ref name=":3" />

As of 11 May 2022,the law has been put on hold by Supreme Court citing re-examination.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/index/4/21872/sedition-and-the-law
|title=Sedition and the L BJaw
| author= S.G.VOMBATKERE
|website= The Citizen
|date=15 May 2022
|publisher= The Citizen
|access-date= 18 May 2022
}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Indian Penal Code navbox}}

[[Category:Sections of the Indian Penal Code]]
[[Category:1870 introductions]]
[[Category:1870 in British law]]
[[Category:Sedition]]
[[Category:Censorship in India]]
[[Category:Free speech case law]]
[[Category:Separatism in India]]

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code - Revision history

Ajay Kumar: Created a new article