The Supreme Court of India clarified that courts may proceed with sedition cases under Section 124A IPC if the accused raises no objection, while hearing a plea by an accused jailed for 17 years whose appeal remains pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that trials involving Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with sedition can be heard if the accused has no objection.
The clarification was issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi while hearing a plea by an accused who has been in jail for 17 years in a sedition-related case. The petitioner’s appeal is currently pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The bench said,
“The petitioner’s grievance is that he has no objection if his criminal appeal is heard in entirety, including with respect to the charge under Section 124A. That being so, we clarify… that wherever the accused has no objection against proceeding of the trial, appeal, or any other proceeding where he has been chargesheeted under Section 124A IPC also, there shall be no impediment for the courts to decide such matters on merits and in accordance with law,”
On that basis, the apex court asked the Madhya Pradesh High Court to take up the petitioner’s appeal and decide it on merits.
Background: Section 124A and Supreme Court’s 2022 order
In May 2022, the Supreme Court of India passed a significant interim order concerning Section 124A of the IPC (sedition law) in the case of S G Vombatkere v. Union of India.
The Court effectively kept the sedition law in abeyance while the Union government reconsidered the provision. Key directions included:
- No new FIRs, investigations, or coercive measures under Section 124A IPC were to be initiated.
- Pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under sedition law were directed to be kept in abeyance.
- Accused persons already booked under Section 124A could approach courts for appropriate relief, including bail.
- The Union and State governments were instructed not to continue using the sedition provision until further orders.
The interim order came after the Central government informed the Court that it intended to re-examine and reconsider the colonial-era sedition provision.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, popularly known as the sedition law, criminalised any words, signs, writings, speeches, or representations that attempted to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government established by law in India. Introduced by the British colonial government in 1870, the provision was primarily used to suppress political dissent and silence freedom fighters during the independence movement. Prominent leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi faced prosecution under this law. Gandhi famously described sedition as the “prince among the political sections of the IPC.”
After independence, the constitutional validity of Section 124A was challenged for violating the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In the landmark judgment of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law but restricted its application only to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder. The Court clarified that mere criticism of the government, however strongly worded, would not amount to sedition.
In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that merely raising slogans without provoking violence did not constitute sedition. Similarly, in Vinod Dua v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that journalists and citizens have the right to criticise the government without fear of sedition charges unless there is incitement to violence.
With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 124A IPC was omitted. However, a similar provision has been introduced under Section 152 of the BNS, titled “Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” The provision criminalises acts that excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist feelings, or activities endangering the sovereignty and unity of India through words, signs, electronic communication, or financial means. Critics argue that although the term “sedition” has been removed, the new provision retains broad powers that may still affect free speech and dissent.
The Editors Guild of India, Major General (Retd.) S G Vombatkere, former Union minister Arun Shourie, and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) have also filed petitions challenging the provision.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE