124A of IPC: SEDITION LAW

124A of IPC: SEDITION LAW 

Author:- VISHNU KUMAR PATIDAR, A STUDENT OF SVKM'S PRAVEEN GANDHI COLLEGE OF LAW MUMBAI

Section 124A of IPC is also refereed as “sedition law” has been a topic of extensive debate and controversy for decades. This colonial-era law, enacted by the British  in 1870. criminalizes any act that incites disaffection towards the government, making it one of the most contentious provisions in India’s legal framework. This article explores the historical context, interpretation, and modern-day relevance of section 124A IPC.

To understand the significance of section 124A IPC, it is essential to delve into its historical context. The law was introduced during British colonial rule to suppress any dissent against the government. Its primary objective was to curb the nationalist movements and suppress voices advocating for India’s independence from British rule. Consequently, section 124A was frequently used target freedom fighters and political activities who sought to challenge British authority. 

``Section 124A IPC states “ whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise, brings pr attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excites disaffection towards the government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extended to three years, to which a fine may be added, or with fine.”

KEY ELEMENTS OF THIS SECTION 

The law criminalizes any act that incites hatred or contempt  or excites disaffection towards the government. This has been a point of contention as the definition of “disaffection ” can be vague and open to interpretation. 

The section encompasses various means of expressions, including spoken or written words, signs, visible representation, or any other method. This broad language has led to concerns about freedom of speech and expression. 

The punishment for sedition can range from imprisonment for life to three years, with or without fine. The dis creation given to authorities in determining the severity of punishment has been a cause for concerns. 

IMPORTANT CASES OF THIS SECTION 

• The Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak

 Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a courageous supporter of India’s independence, was accused of committing sedition on two separate occasions. It was awarded for the first time in 1897 for speeches that supposedly incited other people to engage in violent behavior, resulting in the deaths of two British officers. In 1898, he was found guilty and granted bail, and in 1909, he was brought to trial for seditious writing in his newspaper Kesari, which he owned at the time.

• Aseem Trivedi v. the State of Maharashtra

Aseem Trivedi, a sensational political cartoonist and activist famed for his anti-corruption campaign and cartoons against corruption, was prosecuted on charges of sedition in 2010. He was released on bail the following year. In the complaint, filed by Amit Katarnayea, a legal adviser for a Mumbai-based NGO, Trivedi is accused of displaying ‘insulting and derogatory’ sketches, including one that portrayed the Parliament as an outhouse and another that portrayed the National Emblem in a poor context by replacing the lions with wild beasts, at the activism against corruption organized by Anna Hazare, and then uploading them to social networking sites. 

 Other than this there are many cases on this act that are important. 

Conclusion 

Sedition is, without a doubt, a contentious concept, and it must be balanced delicately against our constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. While no citizen should be permitted to incite unneeded hatred among the populace or to incite hatred and violence against the government (especially in a nation founded on the principles of non-violence), every citizen should be permitted to express their opinions about the government in a free and open manner. In some cases, the viewpoint given by Indian courts and how the law is implemented are at odds, leading some to describe the law as “draconian” in its application. In an era in which citizens are becoming more and more aware of their rights and individual liberty, as well as a growing sense of responsibility and duty in this democratic system, it may be the ideal time to consider reforming this law.