International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

E-ISSN: 2582-2160   •   Impact Factor: 9.24

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

Call for Paper Volume 8, Issue 3 (May-June 2026) Submit your research before last 3 days of June to publish your research paper in the issue of May-June.
Submit Research Paper Join as a Reviewer

Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker TurnItIn

Call for Paper

Volume 8 Issue 3
May-June 2026

Submit your research paper

Indexing Partners
Academia Advanced Sciences Index Bielefeld Academic Search Engine CiteSeer DRJI Google Scholar Independent Search Engine & Directory Network ISI (International Scientific Indexing) Issuu Mendeley Research Networks
RefSeek ResearcherId - Thomson Reuters ResearchGate Scirus Scribd Semantic Scholar UTeM - Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Wiki for Call for Papers WorldCat Zenodo

The Law of Sedition in India: Historical Origins, Judicial Interpretation, and Democratic Implications

Author(s) Ms. Yashnita Nambiar
Country India
Abstract This paper examines the constitutional validity and present-day relevance of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the sedition law introduced by the British colonial government in 1870 to silence political dissent. The provision, historically used against leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897, 1908) and Mahatma Gandhi (1922), was upheld in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) but limited to acts that incite violence or aim to overthrow the State by force. However, recent prosecutions, such as those of activist Disha Ravi (2021), journalist Kishorchandra Wangkhem (2018), and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi (2012), show that the law continues to be invoked in cases involving peaceful criticism or dissent.

Despite the Union Government’s 2022 affidavit to the Supreme Court indicating a review of the provision and the subsequent judicial suspension of pending sedition trials, Section 124A remains on the statute books. NCRB data between 2014 and 2020 shows a 160% increase in sedition cases, while conviction rates hover below 3%, suggesting its primary effect lies in the process of prosecution rather than securing convictions. By drawing on Law Commission reports, Constituent Assembly debates, comparative studies of sedition laws in countries like the UK and Australia, and Indian judicial precedents, this paper argues that Section 124A has moved away from its stated aim of protecting national security and functions instead as a political tool to deter lawful dissent, in direct tension with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
This paper examines the constitutional validity and present-day relevance of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the sedition law introduced by the British colonial government in 1870 to silence political dissent. The provision, historically used against leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897, 1908) and Mahatma Gandhi (1922), was upheld in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) but limited to acts that incite violence or aim to overthrow the State by force. However, recent prosecutions, such as those of activist Disha Ravi (2021), journalist Kishorchandra Wangkhem (2018), and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi (2012), show that the law continues to be invoked in cases involving peaceful criticism or dissent.

Despite the Union Government’s 2022 affidavit to the Supreme Court indicating a review of the provision and the subsequent judicial suspension of pending sedition trials, Section 124A remains on the statute books. NCRB data between 2014 and 2020 shows a 160% increase in sedition cases, while conviction rates hover below 3%, suggesting its primary effect lies in the process of prosecution rather than securing convictions. By drawing on Law Commission reports, Constituent Assembly debates, comparative studies of sedition laws in countries like the UK and Australia, and Indian judicial precedents, this paper argues that Section 124A has moved away from its stated aim of protecting national security and functions instead as a political tool to deter lawful dissent, in direct tension with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Keywords Section 124A, sedition law, Indian Penal Code, colonial legislation, freedom of speech, Article 19(1)(a), constitutional law – India, Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, misuse of sedition, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, proportionality doctrine, public order restrictions, chilling effect on dissent, Law Commission of India, comparative sedition laws, United Kingdom sedition repeal, Brandenburg v. Ohio standard, political dissent in India, democratic governance, legal reform, sedition.
Field Sociology > Politics
Published In Volume 7, Issue 4, July-August 2025
Published On 2025-08-18
DOI https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i04.53918
View / Download PDF File

Share this



E-ISSN 2582-2160
CrossRef

CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.

IJFMR DOI prefix is
10.36948/ijfmr

Downloads
Research Paper Format Copyright Permission Form and Undertaking Form Cover Page Vol 8 Isu 2Cover Page Vol 8 Isu 1Cover Page Vol 7 Isu 6

All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.

CC-BY-SA Open Access

About IJFMR
Fees & Payment
Current Issue
Publication Archive 		Submit Research Paper
Track Submission Status
Publication Guidelines
Publication Ethics
Peer Review & Plagiarism 		Join as a Reviewer
Editors & Reviewers
Reviewer Referral Program
Get Reviewer Membership Certi. 		Website/Journal Policies
Usage Policy
Content Policies
Privacy Policy
Contact Us +91-9687-828-838 editor@ijfmr.com
Powered by Sky Research Publication and Journals