Sedition Law Vis-A-Vis Freedom of Speech and Expression in The Current Scenario: A Critical Study

Abstract

Background: The sedition law, embedded in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, has been a subject of widespread debate, especially regarding its compatibility with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Originally enacted during colonial times to suppress dissent, its relevance and misuse in the current democratic framework have raised concerns. “The law has been critiqued as a tool for curbing dissent, while some argue that it is essential for maintaining national security. This study critically explores the balance between sedition law and freedom of expression in India's evolving socio-political landscape.
Objective: The primary objective of this study is to examine the intersection between sedition law and freedom of speech, particularly in the context of contemporary judicial interpretations and societal shifts. It aims to assess whether the sedition law continues to serve its intended purpose of safeguarding national integrity or if it disproportionately restricts fundamental rights. Additionally, the study evaluates the evolving nature of dissent in the digital age and proposes recommendations to reform the existing legal framework for a better balance between individual liberties and national security.
Methodology: This study uses a systematic literature review methodology to analyze the relationship between sedition law and freedom of speech over the past 20 years, focusing on legal, constitutional, and socio-political aspects, and identifying key patterns and trends.
Findings: The study reveals that sedition law in India is often used to suppress dissenting voices and criticism against the government, with judicial interpretations limited to incitement to violence. It raises questions about the necessity of retaining this colonial law in India.
Conclusion: The sedition law, seen as a colonial relic, hinders freedom of expression and democratic discourse. Reforms, including judicial oversight and clearer definitions, can balance state protection with preserving fundamental rights.