By Satya Narayan Misra* in Bhubaneswar, August 16, 2025: The law of sedition was included by the British in 1870 as S 124A in the IPC to curb growing nationalist sentiments and movements. It continues in a new garb as S 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS). The Operation Sindoor, has become a new battlefield where free voice of academician like Ali Khan of Ashoka University and Mr Vardarajan, founding editor of The Wire are sought to be stifled by invoking the law of sedition, with threat of arrest and custodial interrogation.

While Justice Surya Kant has given relief to both, the basic challenge to the continuation of this obnoxious colonial instrument of suppression and harassment, is yet to be heard by a Constitution. Bench. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the Kedar Singh case in 1962, which upheld the section on sedition in IPC, with some caveats, continue to remain as the template of judicial objectivity.

Kedar Singh Vs State of Bihar (1962)

KedarSingh, an eminent poet, essayist and member of Forward Communist Party was arrested for giving a speech in Barauni of Monghyer district of Bihar in 1953 where he said ‘Kisans and Mazdoors of Forward CP will expose the black deeds of the Congress goondas who are like the British. Only the colour has changed”. He was sentenced to a year of rigorous imprisonment and the challenge to the constitutionality of S124A of IPC came up before the Supreme Court in 1962. The CJI Sinha as apart of 5 judge Constitution bench upheld the validity of S 124 A. However, the court observed that ‘A citizen has right to say or write whatever he likes about the government, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder’. Most importantly, it ruled that sedition happens only when it creates disorder or disturb public peace by resort to violence.

Journalistic Freedom & Court Verdicts

The Ramesh Thapar Vs State of Madras case of 1950 remains a milestone judgement which struck down S 9(1-A) of Madras Maintenance of Public order Act of 1949 which restricted freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) and banned entry and circulation of Thapar’s weekly journal “Cross Roads”, arguing that the state’s justification for the ban on the basis of ‘public safety’ is too broad. Similarly, in the Brijbhusan vs State of Delhi Case 1950, when Brij Bhusan Sharma, editor of Swatantra newspaper was charged with sedition for publishing an article critical of the government, the Court declared the East Public Safety Act of 1949 as unconstitutional as it exceeded the reasonable restriction criteria set by article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court drew a line between disloyalty to the government and strongly worded criticism of the government action.

S124A of IPC & S 152 of BNS (2023)

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita replaces the colonial era Indian Penal Code, the dark shadows of the sedition provision in IPC still pervade over the BMS, albeit with a broader canvas. While the thrust of S 124A of IPC is track cases that ‘incite hatred or contempt or excite disaffection towards the government ‘ , S152 of BMS covers acts that ‘endangers India’s sovereignty , unity and integrity including secessionist and subversive activities’. While it aims to safeguard national interest, its vague language and broad scope raises concerns about its potential misuse and impact on free speech & writing, off line and online.

Recent Cases in the Supreme Court

It’s well-known that under the authoritarian regime of Mr Modi, the contrarian voice is stifled by using institutions like the CBI, ED and Income Tax by harassing such independent critical voices.

Vinod Dua Case (2021)

Vinod Dua, a fearless journalist, was charged with sedition over a You Tube Video criticising the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and put the onus of health problem on to the government. The court quashed the FIR against DUA, holding that his comments constituted criticism of the government policies, which is protected under the right to free speech. The court emphasized that journalists as the fourth pillar of democracy have the right to criticize the government actions without fear of reprisal, so long as they do not incite violence or create public order.

Disha Rai Tool kit Case (2021)

Disha Ravi, a 22-year-old activist was arrested by the Delhi police on February 13 2021 for disseminating a tool kit related to Indian farmers’ protests, alleging that the kit incited violence and disaffection against the government. A Delhi court granted bail, stating that there was ‘scanty and sketchy evidence’ to keep her in custody. The court noted that the toolkit did not incite violence and her actions were protected under the free speech jurisprudence. The arrest was seen as an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle free speech’.

Vombatkere Vs UOI (2022)

The case that has stirred a hornet’s nest was filed by SG Vombatkere, a retired Army General, challenging the constitutional validity of S124A of IPC. The appellant argues that S124A uses vague language, giving room to the authorities to misuse it and curtail people from expressing their views about the government. It gives government the arbitrary authority to suppress any opposition under the shenanigan of India’s sovereignty and integrity. Taking note of these concerns, the Supreme Court has directed the Central government to both the State governments and UTs to refrain from initiating new cases under S124A. It has put a stay on all pending trials, appeals and proceedings relating to S124A. It has also urged the government to reconsider the provision, highlighting its potential for misuse.

The Vardarajan Case

Siddhartha Vardarajan, Founding Editor of Wire was booked by Assam Police on 11th July 2025 under S152 of BNS for an article ‘IAF Lost fighter jets to Pak’ during OP Sindoor. India’s DA Captain Shiv Kumar, had suggested that India lost some aircraft during the operation due to constraints imposed by political leadership. The Court emphasized that a news report does not inherently threaten national unity, cautioning against implicating journalists for news articles and refrain from custodial interrogation.

The Way Forward

The eventual ruling on S152 will decide whether India has moved beyond sedition laws or replaced them with new language, serving the same purpose. Until then, the case will stand as a warning: in today’s India, reporting the truth can land a journalist in the crosshairs of a national security. If the judiciary, as the custodian of fundamental rights, fails to draw a clear line between legitimate reporting and acts that genuinely threaten sovereignty, the chilling effect on investigative journalism will deepen. In 2021 CJI Ramana had observed that the rate of conviction for sedition is relatively low and that governmental powers have abused this statute. The purpose of the government is not to convict the accused but to harass, intimidate and silence critics of the government through a lengthy procedure. The sedition law must be scrapped as Britain, the original sculptor, did in 2009 through the Coroners & Justice Act.

• Professor Constitutional Law