File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

The Law Of Sedition Under Indian Penal Code, 1860: An Analysis

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, often referred to as India's "Sedition Law," is the subject of much debate and discussion in the country today. The law's origins may be traced back to the colonial era, when the country's political and administrative overlords enacted it to quell any potential revolt. The rule of law persists long after independence has been achieved. The contentious Sedition Law is the primary topic of this research project. How it may be used in the present day.

The public is sharply split about this issue. Some argue that the legislation is necessary because of the country's existing social and political context and its two hostile neighbours. Others, however, argue that the regulation is in direct opposition to the right to free expression since it is a vestige of colonial rule. Many critics say the regulation has a chilling impact on Indian people. This article will examine the Sedition Law, using precedents and examples to draw conclusions on whether the law will be relevant in the post-independence age or if it should be repealed in order to increase the latitude for free speech in the country.

Introduction

Sedition in General
Sedition refers to speech that advocates for an uprising against the government. Sedition is "perhaps the very vaguest of all offences," according to Edward Jenks, who in The Book of English Law attempted to define it as "the speaking or writing of words calculated to excite disaffection against the Constitution as by law established, to procure the alteration of it by other than lawful means, or to incite any person to commit a crime to the disturbance of the peace."

According to 18 U.S.C. 2384, "[i]f two or more persons in [the U.S.]... conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States.

In the history of Anglo-American common law, sedition has been around for quite some time. The contemporary definition of "sedition," according to Curtis Bright in Surveillance, Militarism, and Drama in the Elizabethan Era, "notion of inciting by words or writing disaffection towards the state or constituted authority," arose during the Elizabethan period. Across the North American continent, the idea of hate speech gained traction, prompting several colonies to pass their own anti-hate speech legislation. For instance, in 1735, John Peter Zenger was targeted for prosecution under seditious libel statutes in the New York colony by the governor.

In 1775, George III. was highlighted. The need of actively seeking out and punishing rebels as a method of controlling unrest in the American colonies. The monarch issued a proclamation instructing all royal authorities to seek and examine any potential for revolt or unrest. Riots became once again a contentious issue once independence was declared in the United States. The federal government, led by John Adams, passed the Aliens and Sedition Act in 1798 out of concern that radical ideas from the French Revolution would seep into the New Republic and possibly lead to its imminent collapse.

The act reads, in part: "To interfere with the application of United States law, or to threaten or prevent enforcement by any person holding or office, or performing or performing duties in or under the United States;" and "To publish or disseminate any material falsely representing the United States as the source of such After Adams and the Federalists were defeated in the 1800 election, the statute was overturned by the Democratic-Republican administration headed by Thomas Jefferson[1].
Sedition Law In India
The Constitution of India gives everyone the right to pursue happiness in whichever way they deem suitable, regardless of whether or not it is feasible. Article 19(1)(a), which protects the right to freedom of expression, is its most prominent provision. It is in this Article that Indian people are given a voice.

Article 19(1)(b) provides that citizens may assemble in public without the use of force. In simple words, everyone in our nation has the freedom to peacefully protest whatever they choose.

Both of these Articles, however, are subject to reasonable limitations. In order to preserve the authority of the state, appropriate restrictions are permitted under Article 19(2) and (3).

Many resources exist to help adhere to these limitations. In India, one such instrument is Article 124A of the Penal Code of 1860. Whether vocal, nonverbal, or by visual representations or signs, the law punishes those who exhibit hate against the government. The possible sentence is between three years and life in jail. The text reads as follows: "Whoever, by speech, sign, visual representation, or other means, incites or seeks to incite hate, contempt, or disaffection against the Government constituted by law in 3[India] is guilty of a criminal offence. 5[Life in prison], with or without the possibility of a fine being imposed; or imprisonment for a term not to exceed three years, with or without the possibility of a fine being imposed; or a fine.

First, it's important to note that "disaffection" encompasses both disloyalty and hostility in general.

Second, it is not a violation of this provision to express disapproval of government action with the goal of securing that action's modification by authorized methods, so long as such criticism does not incite or seek to incite hate, contempt, or disaffection.

Commentary that disapproves of a government administrative or other action, but does not incite or seek to incite hate, contempt, or disaffection is not an offence under this provision, for the reasons stated in Explanation 3.

There are advocates for and opponents of this legislation. In light of the insurgencies in Kashmir, the North-East, and the Naxal-occupied regions, its proponents argue that it safeguards the integrity of the nation against traitors. And because of its unfriendly neighbours, the nation is safe from the influence of any potential allies.

On the other hand, some question the law's continued applicability on the grounds that it was enacted during the colonial period in an effort to stifle independence movements. Some people believe the government is using the legislation to silence those who point out their mistakes. They went on to say that the bill has made an already divisive political climate even more so. These topics, and their connection to so-called hyper-nationalism, will be explored in depth in the study paper.

Inciting revolt or violence with the intent of undermining or overturning legitimate authority is incitement, a severe felony punishable by fines and imprisonment.

This article provides background on a specific offence committed against the government.
Rebel Conspiracies and Federal Law:
Title 18, Section 2384 of the United States Code is where you'll find the Federal Sedition Conspiracy Act. The United States, namely this region. Treason, revolt, and other offences of a similar kind are addressed in the Code.

A legal definition of hate speech may be found here in the United States. In the United States, sedition is considered any offence that involves more than one person.

Using violence to overthrow, destroy, or wage war against the U.S. government; using violence to prevent, hinder, or delay the enforcement of U.S. law; or using violence to seize, confiscate, and possess property of the U.S.
Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, and Treason
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant plotted to use violence in order to win a conviction for sedition conspiracy. It's not the same to just support the use of violence. The First Amendment generally protects speech that merely alleges the use of force.

When many persons offer statements calling for a total upheaval of the government, urging others to do so "by whatever means necessary," this does not necessarily constitute a plot to overthrow the government. Instead, they merely express their views, regardless of whether or not those views are favourable.

However, it may be considered a seditious conspiracy to intentionally arrange such activities. Distributing weapons, setting up an attack's logistics, and actively fighting legal authorities are all things they may do when plotting such operations. increase. It's more probable that someone may be charged with seditious conspiracy if they do such measures while also using language that suggests an effort to overthrow the government.

When compared to treason (as defined by Article 3 of the United States Constitution), sedition is wholly distinct. As a general rule, inciting insurrection against state authority is an incitement conspiracy, whereas actually waging war against the United States or aiding its adversaries constitutes the more severe crime of treason. That's illegal. One alternative is that treasonous actions are often preceded by seditious plots.
Review of Literature
1. Anish Bachchan, Limitations of the Rights of Protests:
  Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees citizens of the countries listed the freedom to peacefully assemble and express their views. After the notorious Farmers Protest in 2021, they saw firsthand how difficulties with the aforementioned articles may quickly develop into violence.[2]
2. Chintranshul Sinha, - The Great Repression: The Story of Sedition Law In India:
  The author voiced their disapproval of the Sedition Law, noting its problematic historical and legal precedents and the fact that independence fighters like Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, etc. were also tried and convicted under it. Another theme the author explored was how, in the post-colonial age, the law has been used to silence "dissenters.[3]
3. J.Alva, -A Constitution to Keep:
  Until the Supreme Court suspended it in 2022, the sedition statute in the nation was the subject of much debate. The author challenges its applicability in modern India, where citizens would value free expression and fight to protect the foundations of their democracy.[4]
4. George Orwell, -Ninteen Eighty Four:
  The book 1984, generally regarded as one of the greatest works of literature, depicted the totalitarian state's ability to monitor and punish its citizens for any perceived infractions.[5]
Statement of the Problem
The primary issue with the legislation was briefly discussed above. Opponents of the bill have voiced fears that it may be used to stifle speech that points out the government's mistakes. People are hesitant to speak out for fear of retaliation from authorities.

The act's sudden and significant rise in controversy over the last decade presents the greatest challenge to its comprehension. Why has Indian law elevated the country's tense social and political situation to the level of an introductory course (A reference to George Orwell's 1984).
Objective of the Study
There are few objectives to this research paper:
1. To understand the historical perspective of the Sedition Law
2. To examine the use of the law in the post-colonial era
3. The supposed use and misuse of the law in the past decade.
4. Supporters and detractors of the said law
5. The nexus with "Hyper-nationalism"
6. The question the relevancy of the act itself.
Expected Outcome of the Study
Without enough preparation and study, any result might have disastrous consequences. The case laws and related instances may help make it much simpler for the common person in this nation to comprehend the law. The biggest issue is the current legal struggle in the Supreme Court, which makes it difficult to tell whether the legislation will protect us from internal or foreign dangers or if it will undermine the fundamental substance of the constitutional liberties our forebears have set out for us.

The author of this research paper must carefully carry out the objectives in order to point out the good and the bad points of this act and how it can suggest to the Indian Lawmakers to either reform this act for the betterment of the citizens or how to get rid of it but keep the security of the country stronger so that it can face future Pulwama Attacks.
Research Framework
This research paper will be divided into seven chapters in order to verify the author's research paper. They are as follows:
- Introduction: The introduction will provide the basic concept of the Sedition Law in India. It will also give the general introduction of the said law, its existence, and its notoriety.
- The History of Sedition Law India: It will explain the existence of the Sedition Law during the Colonial Era. It will give more insights on why the law has existed. Furthermore, it should give details on who were arrested under this said law during the freedom struggle.
- The Use of Sedition Law in the Post Colonial times: The chapter will explain about the use of Sedition Law post-independence. It will provide more context to how the law gained its attention in the last few years. It should also highlight the future of the act.
- The Case Studies and Illustrations Regarding the Sedition Laws: This chapter will provide examples which could make the understanding of the Sedition Law easier. The Case Studies will provide some of the most important cases of the said law and how such cases have been a pinnacle point for the law's controversy.
- Supporters and Detractors of the Sedition Law: In this chapter, it will point out the people who support this law. It will also mention their reasons. It will also point out the reasons why people revere the law.
- Its Nexus With "Hyper-Nationalism": The chapter will be explaining the nexus between the Sedition Law and the term which is being used in the last few years i.e. "Hyper-Nationalism". It will be the focal point of the research paper because in the last few years many critics claim that the said term has a connection to the Sedition Law.
- Conclusion and Suggestion: The last chapter of this research paper will express the suggestions the author has for the current situation with the Sedition Law. Then the author will conclude whether the law should be reformed.

History Of Sedition Law

Sedition Law during Colonial Era

The sedition clause was originally used to stifle dissenting voices within the Indian independence struggle and is a relic of British colonial control. The introduction of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 in 1870 under the leadership of James Stephen was not included in Macaulay's initial draft of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

As a result of the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act (IV of 1898), this version was further revised. Since the revision, this section now has three distinct descriptions of him rather than the previous one. The current shape of the section is the product of many A's. Constitutional modifications in 1935 (Government of India Act), 1947 (Independence Act), and 1950 (Constitution of India) led to these years.

Queen Empress v. Jogendra Cunder Bose & Ors. (1891) ILR 19 Cal. was the first significant sedition case. The Bengali magazine's editor faced charges of inciting violence and sedition. called into serious doubt the existence of They contended that it was counter to the law's original design to penalise individuals for exercising their rights. Since the magazine in question did not include any incendiary material, the Supreme Court of Calcutta ruled that the publisher was not responsible for its distribution to the general public. The High Court further distinguished between "disapproval" (i.e., valid criticism) and "discontent" (meaning "feelings contrary to affection"), stressing that hate speech must not abridge the rights of its targets.

The Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak & Keshab Mahadev Bal (1897) ILR Bom 112 was the next seminal decision on the topic. When two British officers were killed as a result of a speech given by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, he was arrested and charged with sedition. Based on the term of "dissatisfied" established in the Jogendra Chunder Bose case, one judge on the Bombay High Court concluded that any "bad feelings" against the government constitute criminal behaviour.

The High Court has, in effect, silenced any reasonable dissent. It further said that there was no need for actual harm to be caused by inciting to hate. The court concluded that the instigator's aim must be considered when determining whether or not provocative words constitute incitement to hate.

Tilak was again prosecuted with instigating an essay supporting the accomplishment of Swarajah ("autonomy") in the case Queen Empress versus Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1917) 19 Bom LR 211, which occurred around 20 years later. for Indigenous Peoples Tilak stated his allegiance to the British royal family in the piece, but maintained his criticism of the public service, claiming in court that the public service and the British government were two independent institutions.

The Chamber of the Bombay High Court disagreed with Tilak, finding no justification for the difference since public services get their power from the state. It has been made clear that only comments about government services may be deemed offensive.

The court adopted a liberal stance, rejecting the interpretation of "dissatisfaction" offered in Queen-Empress vs. Tilak and Baru. against love by a single panel of justices from the same court. The verdict was encouraging for free speech since it took into account the practical effects of the defendant's claimed insurrection on the population at large..

Sedition Law and Freedom Struggle
Every major figure in the Indian National Congress—from Mahatma Gandhi (1922) to Maulana Azad (1922) to Jawaharlal Nehru (1921, eight times)—was found guilty of inciting violence against the government.

Tilak did, however, prevail in one lawsuit involving him. The Pune District Magistrate's Court received a complaint against Tilak for his remarks on July 22, 1916. His Rs.200,000 bail for "good conduct" for a year was challenged on the basis of Sections 105 and 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To no avail, Mohammad Ali Jinnah defended his Tilak in Poona. The magistrate seized Tilak on August 12, 1916. Jinnah challenged this decision and ultimately prevailed.

On May 29, 1951, at a session of parliament, Jawaharlal Nehru declared, "Reconsider Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. It does not belong in the realm of possible outcomes.It's best to get rid of it as quickly as possible. While the rest of the world addresses this problem in many ways, none of them should exist in this form. Our natural inclinations are counter to the facts.

In its original form, Section 124A simply made it illegal to incite "discontent." "hate or contempt" was tacked on to the amendment in 1898. The message was unmistakable. You shouldn't hold the English monarchy in contempt. This is the current incarnation of the code provision known as section 124A. Judge Arthur Strachey of Britain issued the following warning: "Frustration is stimulated in many ways." Poems, tales, dramas, and philosophical or historical arguments may all be used to incite unhappiness and even overtly oppose governments. The real item can only be seen by inspecting the form.

Whether the poetry or argument is real or just a front for the author's true provocative goals has to be considered. A slew of anti-free-speech regulations soon followed this verdict. Section 124A forbade Indians from showing disrespect to British officials, yet the very term "riot" incited exactly the kind of animosity that it meant to prevent. It is impossible to criminalize thoughts and beliefs. The subsequent sedition trials served to further inflame nationalist passions.

Article 19(2) only applies to remarks that harm national security or seek to topple the state, according to the Press Commission's findings on the 1952 Master Tara Singh Section case. He made the point that he was not a Christian. Famous District Judge and Sessions Judge Sir Eric Weston, afterwards a distinguished Judge of the Bombay High Court and Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court, ruled as follows: says so.It suggested doing rid of Section 124A because "this clause has become irrelevant due to the nature of the changes that have taken place," namely India becoming a sovereign democracy. His Justice G. S. Rajadhyaksha of the Bombay High Court presided over the Press Commission, which also comprised C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer, Achariya Narendra Dev, and Dr. Zakir Hussein.

Sedition Law in the post independent times[6]
During 1951, Tara Singh Gopi Chand sued the state of Punjab. There has never been a ruling on the constitutionality of section 124-A of the Indian Panel Code of 1860 until Cri. L.J. 449. Since India is now a republic, its constitutional laws take precedence over any previous British legislation. Recognizing in this instance that Section 124-A constituted an evident limitation on free speech and expression, the then-Punjab Supreme Court decided that Article 19 of India's Constitution guarantees the right to free expression.

We have ruled that this clause is unenforceable and hence null and void. Soon after, in 1951, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act was approved by the first parliament of independent India. This was done in part to fix the Tara Singh Gopi Chand judgment's unconstitutional interpretation of the Sedition Act. This was accomplished by establishing both a right to free speech and new justifications for limiting that right.

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution specifies the sole grounds for limiting free expression as national security, defamation, contempt of court, decency, and morality. The updated legislation expanded the grounds for restricting free speech, including public order, international relations, and incitement to crime.

Acts intended to undermine national security or topple the state were not the only ones that may be prosecuted as sedition. In other words, it has to be "in the interest of national security." With such a wide definition, the state may use the crime of sedition more broadly.The Adivasi chieftain defendant in [Debi Soren & Ors. 1954, His Cri Against the State. L. J 758] was accused of publicly criticizing the government. Disapproval and discontent are two different emotions, and the District Court of the Patna High Court made that difference obvious in its judgement. supporting sexuality and not breaking Article 19 of the Indian Constitution[7].

The Landmark Kedar Nath Singh Judgment
A Five Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 and went on to clarify the proper position of the sedition law in India in Kedar Nath Singh, which is considered the most authoritative Judgement of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the sedition law. Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party of Bihar, faced sedition charges for comments he made against the government of India, which was led by the Indian National Congress.

The Supreme Court made it clear that Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be used to restrict free expression, and that the law could only be utilized if it could be shown that the seditious statement in issue led to the encouragement to violence or would result in public disturbance. Kedar Nath's statement did not amount to sedition since he only attacked the Congress party and not the Indian State itself, and because it did not promote violence.

The Supreme Court also ruled that in order to employ the sedition provision, there must be an evil intent to promote violence. The Court affirmed the old Federal Court's interpretation of section 124-A of the Indian Panel Code of 1860 in [Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs King Empror, (1942) FCR 38], and its judgement included warranted criticism of the administration. We were in complete opposition to and favour of arbitrary limits on freedom of expression. According to the Federal Court of Justice, there must be public disturbance, or at least a reasonable possibility of public disturbance, in order for incitement to hate to be a crime[8].

Case Studies and Illustrations
Here are some of the following cases[9][10][11]:In the case of Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021), the legitimacy of sedition was challenged.A petition was filed by Senior Advocate Colin Gonarves requesting that the Supreme Court of India review its judgement in Kedar Nath Singh v. Bihar State (1962). Three of his Supreme Court colleagues, Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and KM Joseph, responded by issuing a petition seeking the nullification of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Did. The three-judge panel comprising Chief Justice Ramana, Judge Bopanna, and Judge Roy marked Kishorechandra Wangkhemkcha's petitions for review on July 16, 2021. Aamoda Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd.'s retired Major General S. G. Vombatkere.

The Indian Editors Guild Ltd. has raised concerns about that particular provision. The appeal by the Editors Guild further shows that Section 124A is being utilized to threaten writers. Kishore Chandrawan Khemcha of Manipur and Kanhayaral Shukla of Chattisgarh, both journalists for her site, have been arrested and accused with publishing inciting social media postings and cartoons. They petitioned the court to rule that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (from 1860) is unconstitutional since it makes sedition a crime with severe penalties. His three FIRs filed under Section 124A against Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha have been posted on Facebook for review and feedback.

Manipur's prime minister was referred to as the "Prime Minister's agent" in the comments section, while MPs and their families were condemned for clamping down on the designated tribe. Kanhaiya Lal Shukla drew a cartoon about a made-up run-in with the law enforcement and shared it on Facebook.Details from the petition

Petitioners argue that Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of speech, is breached by Section 124A. They contend that the limitations set out in Section 124A are insufficient. Therefore, Article 19(2)'s prohibitions on free speech are not applicable. The petition further argues that the precedent set in Kedar Nath Singh v. Bihar State (1962) is now moot. It's possible that reasonable constraints like those outlined in Section 124A were warranted in 1962 given the state of society and the economy. Since then, other laws addressing public safety and order have been passed, rendering Section 124A unnecessary.

Petitioners also noted that the clause is too vague, which might lead to misuse. The rights guaranteed by 19a(1) cannot be sacrificed in this way.
In this instance, his assertions that he is a Wangkhemkcha were backed up by three separate petitions for intervention. An intervenor is a non-party to legal proceedings who requests to be heard by the court for the purpose of ensuring due process. Those things are: Sashi Kumar, a prominent journalist, was the first to raise concerns that the government had improperly classified legitimate criticism of the administration as "hate speech" due to the ambiguity of Section 124A. He backs up his claim that the Sedition Act wasn't meant to silence dissenters with references to discussions about the law in the Constituent Assembly and the first Congress. To aid the court in evaluating the legislation in light of recent events, another intervenor, law expert Dr. Sanjay Jain, offered an overview of hate speech regulations in several nations. He says that colonial officials enacted Section 124A to stifle resistance to their rule and that it should be changed.The Media Foundation is an additional intervenor that argues the clause is unconstitutional since it dates back to before the Constitution was written. Pending before the Supreme Court is a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which makes it a crime to spread hatred.

Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors (2021)
Facts

His Vinod Dua, a veteran journalist, was producing his YouTube show called The Vinod Dua Show[12].
He issued a statement to the government about the lack of testing facilities, allegedly misinformed him about the availability of PPE kits, and commented that there was insufficient information about them.
He went on to say that exports of ventilators and disinfectants had been stopped behind schedule.
He also explained that the prime minister used the terrorist attack to collect votes for the election.
He talked about massive labor movements during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Vinod Dua is alleged to have made comments intended to foster panic, hatred, contempt, dissatisfaction, and subsequent anti-government violence. Issue raised. Did the complainant commit hate speech under Section 124A through his comments?

Held

While dismissing the charges against Section 124A, the Supreme Court found that:
Statements made in respectful circumstances can, at best, be described as expressing disapproval of the actions of governments and their officials to deal swiftly and effectively with the current situation. It was not created with the intention of inciting public confusion. They are therefore recorded as hate speech exceptions.
The petitioner was within the permissible limits set by the Court's judgment of Kedar Nath Singh. Certain facts in the statements may not be entirely accurate. However, given the general trend of YouTube shows and all the testimony taken in its entirety, it cannot be said that the petitioner has exceeded the limits set by this Court's judgment of his Kedar Nath Singh. According to India's Supreme Court, any activity intended or likely to disturb public peace by the use of force is a crime. Based on the facts of the case, the court concluded that the language used by Vinod Dua can best be explained as a disapproval of the measures taken by the government and its officials to quickly and efficiently resolve the current crisis. concluded. They were not created to show a tendency to incite others, to use violence to stir up unrest, or to disturb the peace of society.

Supreme Court Opinion

On June 3, 2021, Justice UU Lalit and Vineet Saran of India's Supreme Court withdrew the FIR filed against him by journalist Vinod Dua in connection with a YouTube presentation on communal rioting in Delhi. This case, Vinod Dua v. Commonwealth of India (2021), has been approved by the government.

The Supreme Court has come at the following conclusions:
Citizens have the freedom to express their opinions on the conduct of their governments and their representatives, so long as such opinions do not promote violence against legitimate governments or intentionally disrupt public order. increase. The application of Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC should be limited to cases where the word or phrase in question has a harmful tendency or intent to cause public confusion or disorder.
No allegations were made during the talk show by Dua that the Prime Minister used death figures or terrorist attacks to gain votes. No such claims were made, nor were any objections presented that the translation was inaccurate. Indian airstrikes in Balakot, Pathangkot, and Pulwama were utilized as a political event to sway voters, according to the petitioners, but the Foreign Intelligence Review Board (FIRB) disagreed.

Numerous seasonal employees went back to their native communities. They will have access to food and shelter while they go. Dua, in his capacity as a journalist, will bring a crucial problem to the public's notice if he makes specific comments on his talk show on March 30, 2020, before the Supreme Court considers the matter. If I wanted to, I could say that I could. Trying to swim against the stream. Accusations that complainants are disseminating false information or rumours are without merit.

In the early phases of the pandemic, there were insufficient testing facilities to evaluate and track the effect of the disease in a nation with such a large population. For this reason, the petitioner's first two paragraphs should consist exclusively of an evaluation of the current state of affairs regarding the test facility, PPE suits, N-95 respirators, and multi-layer respirators.

Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021)

We are optimistic that with your cooperation, Section 370 would be reinstated at J&K,"Farooq Abdullah said in an interview last year. As claimed in their appeal, Rajat Sharma and Neh Srivastava claim that Abdullah has mentioned "reviving Article 370" with "China's backing." In an earlier interview with The Wire, Abdullah said that the people of Kashmir do not identify as Indian, do not want to be Indian, and prefer Chinese authority.

The complainant argued that Mr. Abdullah should be prosecuted for sedition under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for making such statements. The petitioner contended that Abdullah urged the people of Jammu and Kashmir to "join China" because, as BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra put it, "the people of Jammu and Kashmir don't feel like Indians."
To launch a "public interest lawsuit" against former Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister Farouk Abdullah for his "pro-China" views on the repeal of Section 370, petitioners must pay a fee of Rs 50,000, as stated in the Supreme Court's observation in Rajat Sharma v. The Commonwealth of India (2021). , according to the Indian Constitution. Banks have said that opinions that differ from the decision of the central government cannot be considered offensive. Nothing existed.

Toolkit case: State v. Disha A. Ravi (2021)
Disha Ravi, a climate activist, was arrested, and two others involved with the Greta Thunberg toolbox case had arrest orders issued for them, which prompted widespread indignation. According to the allegations levelled against them, the three activists collaborated with a pro-Kalistan group to create a toolkit designed to "defame India around the world with the Three Farm Acts." Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg revealed the toolkit on Sunday, claiming it proved Calistani was plotting against India. On the same day that a FIR was filed with the Delhi Police against the toolkit's creator, Google requested the email addresses of anybody who had contributed to the publishing or alteration of the materials housed on Google Docs.

Prosecution
To organize his "International Farmers Strike" WhatsApp group, the plaintiff/accuser reportedly asked a limited number of persons to join. She also got rid of the group's text messages from her phone so there would be no paper trail connecting her to the toolkit. Prosecutorial evidence suggests that she also attempted to conceal her identity for fear of repercussions from the law. has been accused of giving a voice to climate activist star Greta Thunberg, who supports the separatists. Courts in Delhi have issued their verdicts.

Disha, the petitioner/accused, appeared before the Delhi High Court, where it was argued whether or not she had committed any crimes during her protests of the Farm Act. He was allegedly involved in some kind of agitation.

The people in a democracy serve as the watchdogs of the state. Just because they disagree with the government's policies does not give you the right to throw them in prison. Objectivity in government programs may be achieved by a variety of techniques, some of which include openly disagreeing with the program, its implementation, its results, and its beneficiaries.The Delhi High Court questions whether an educated and outspoken populace, as opposed to a passive majority, is essential to the development of a vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, I found out there was no wiggle space.

Anyone with dubious qualifications may come into touch with several people through social interaction. As long as their contact stays within the law, it doesn't matter whether each party is aware of the other's intentions or not.The Tribunal said that the complainant/defendant had spent almost five days in police detention and that it would be acceptable to further limit her liberty on the basis of the complete and thorough allegations. Claimed it violated the law. She must continue to cooperate with current investigations and participate in investigations if called by IO. She must post personal bail of Rs.1,000 with two sureties, subject to the following conditions.

Without the court's consent, she can't leave the country, and she has to be stealthily present at every level of the process before the court gets involved.

Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021)
Patricia Mukim posted on Facebook in 2020 after 25 unknown youths assaulted kids playing basketball in Block 4, Law Sothan with iron bars and clubs. CM Meghalaya Conrad Sangma What occurred in Law Sotan yesterday, where a non-tribal teenager was assaulted with a deadly weapon and is now hospitalized, cannot be tolerated in a state with a unified administration and an effective police force.Meghalaya's lengthy history as a failed state is shown by the fact that such aggressors and troublemakers have never been arrested and, if they were, never punished under the law.

We'd all want to see some progress made, so let's hope this doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Criminal organizations don't work together as a whole. The law dictates how they should be dealt with. Why must our non-tribal brothers and sisters in this time of upheaval live in perpetual fear? raise the bar" Lawsau Tansilon, principal and secretary at Dover's Chenon School, filed a complaint in response, saying that the complainant's Facebook posts might promote enmity and lead to confrontations between different communities.

I was. In retaliation, the petitioner had asked the Meghalaya High Court to dismiss the FIR she had filed. However, in a judgement issued on November 10, 2020, the High Court rejected this petition. Study of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India's Division Bench, comprised of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, addressed Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim: rendered a judgment against you under Sections 153 A, 500, and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code. It was written in 1860 and it guarantees residents the right to free expression unless doing so would seriously disrupt public order.

India is a melting pot of cultures and peoples. The freedom promised in the preamble is grounded on the rights guaranteed to all citizens by several articles. It is possible for tensions to arise when rich folks exploit their constitutional freedom to freely travel, settle, or work anywhere they like, regardless of local laws or customs. Anger may develop when victims speak out about their experiences, particularly when state authorities ignore or ignore them.

These outbursts of anger are both screams of sadness and demands for the denial or delay of justice. is. The petitioner said that the Meghalaya chief minister, police commissioner, and regional Dolber failed to punish the person responsible for the assault on the non-tribal adolescent, and the court agreed with him. called attention to the fact that it was aimed at his Chenon. Candidates mentioned an assault on non-tribals that occurred in 1979.

There is no basis in reality for the plaintiff's Lawsohtun assertion that his comments might incite community animosity and lead to communal confrontations throughout the state. The applicants' passionate calls for the safety and dignity of Meghalaya's non-tribal residents are not hate speech. It was a plea for fair treatment.[13][14]
3.5. Zakir Hussain v. UT of Ladakh (2021): Galwan valley clashes

On June 18, 2020, as the Indian and Chinese armies clashed in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh, the J&K police filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Zakir Hussain and Nissar Ahman Khan in connection with a viral audio clip containing offensive conversation degrading the country's armed forces.

Some people said the debate was rude because of insults directed towards the Indian Army for their role in the Chinese military's disastrous Galwan expedition. The petitioner argued before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that the police lacked the legal standing to file a FIR because the Court may only take notice of a complaint submitted by a District Magistrate under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (C.r.P.c), and no such complaint had been filed.

Case Analysis Notes from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court
The Court determined that, given the unique nature of the facts, it was unnecessary to rule on the following two issues:

How do Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution affect the meaning and application of Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code?
Can a FIR be made for violations of 124A, 153A, 153B, 505(2), and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without the approval of the proper authorities?

The Hon'ble High Court has made the following determinations based on the evidence presented in this case:

In order to prove an offence under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, and 505(2) of the IPC, it was necessary to establish that the words, written or uttered, as well as signs or visual representations, had the tendency or purpose of producing public disturbance or disruption of public peace by inciting to crime.
The police have the jurisdiction to submit a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving information that exposes the commission of a cognizable crime, regardless of whether or not the information is referable to Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
If the Central Government, State Government, or District Magistrate, as the case may be, did not give prior approval for the Court to take cognizance of the offense(s) referable to Section 196 CrPC, the Court must refuse to take cognizance of the offense(s).
If a report involving an offence under Section 196 CrPC is presented to the Judicial Magistrate without prior sanction from the competent authority, the Court should not take cognizance of the report and should return it to the Judicial Magistrate for presentation only after prior sanction from the competent authority has been obtained.
A court is regarded to have "taken notice" of the final police report under Section 173 CrPC only if it has reviewed the report in order to proceed in a lawful way. Since the police report was sent back to the Public Prosecutor's Office for violating section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petition was granted and all criminal proceedings against the petitioner were terminated, including his challenged FIR. [15]

Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam (2021)
On May 16, 2021, Rajna Parvin Sultana was arrested for violating Sections 120B and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Anti-Insult to National Honour Act of 1971, all of which have resulted in her incarceration. Media An allegation was made that the petitioner had used an Indian flag as a tablecloth during Eid festivities.Several petitions have been filed against the petitioner for wilful disrespect of the Indian flag as a consequence of the occurrence. The petitioner claims that the Gauhati High Court granted bail to five of the six suspects included in the FIR.

The state, however, alleged that the crime took place in the defendant's house at a luncheon he held on May 14, 2021. Sufficient evidence was presented that the accused petitioner hosted guests for the Eid celebration while using a tablecloth with a design reminiscent of the Indian national flag.

Commentary from the Gauhati High Court
The court agreed with the defendant and warned the petitioner to exercise extreme caution moving forward. The Bench stated that the materials gathered during the investigation and their admissibility during the trial would be used to determine whether the accused-petitioner committed the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 in any public place or another place within public view by her action.

Therefore, it did not seem to be an act meant to incite discontent against the government in order to bring about a revolution. The Court found that the accused-petitioner's continued custodial detention was unnecessary for investigating the case and that her release on bail at this stage of the investigation would not be likely to cause any prejudicial effect in the subsequent investigation, provided that she continues to extend her assistance and co-operation. This detention has been ongoing since May 16, 2021. The petitioner was, therefore, allowed to post bail in the amount of Rs 20,000 and go free.[16]

Sikha Sarma v. State of Assam (2021)
The petitioner was the subject of an F.I.R. for allegedly demeaning the nation's martyrs in a Facebook post made on April 5, 2021. It was also claimed that by telling the media not to refer to the victims as "Swahids" since they were compensated for the services they rendered to the nation, the accused petitioner denigrated and humiliated their sacrifice. The nation was in mourning after 22 Jawans, including two from Assam, were killed in an anti-naxal operation in Chattisgarh on March 3, 2021, and the slanderous remark was claimed to have triggered a widespread outrage on social media.

To the state, the accused's claims that the killing of our soldier was not a crime not only showed disdain for the nation's sacrifices, but also incited anti-social forces. Through the aforementioned tweet, the accused tried to stir hatred against the government while it carried out its constitutional responsibilities. In addition, her words might have given terrorists and anti-state groups more reason to target India.

Ms. A. M. Bora, a counsel for the petitioner, contended that the defendant did not break the law by making the Facebook post in question. did not make any statements that were intended to or could be interpreted as inciting hostility, disrespect, or dissatisfaction; the complainant maintains that the term "swahid/martyr" is not defined in any law or government statement, and that the accused has not broken any laws by exercising her First Amendment rights. claimed.

Opinion of Gauhati High Court
The accused petitioner has social networked his "swahid/martyr" on his platform, linking to her 22 valiant and patriotic troops. This includes her two soldiers from the state of Assam. It has been reported that he shared his thoughts on the matter. His death in the line of duty drew significant condemnation. As a result of weighing the pros and cons of the claims and evidence acquired to yet by investigators in this case, as well as the risk to prisoners' health posed by the second wave of COVID-19, the High Court has determined that until further investigation, the defendants will be unable to be transferred to a different facility. We have grounds to think that keeping the petitioner, a woman, in custody any longer is not required for the inquiry at hand.

The bail motion was approved, and the petitioner was freed on Rs. 30,000 bond.

Patit Paban Halder v. State of West Bengal (2019)

Here, the police were aware of a gathering in the hamlet where the inciting speech was taking place and responded accordingly. Only a small fraction of his 30-to-40-person church was armed. People ran away and the culprit was taken into custody as police arrived.

Several incendiary pamphlets and flyers were discovered in their possession. Indictments were brought against them under the following statutes: sections 121A, 122, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; sections 25(a) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959; and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1908. The Calcutta High Court's Rulings

There was no evidence in the case file connecting the defendant and the applicant to the claimed offences, and the court determined that the prosecution had been terribly failed in establishing the claims against the applicant. The prosecution's case was found to be inconsistent, leading to a ruling in favour of the plaintiff.The court also ruled that under common law, the prosecution had the only responsibility of proving the defendant guilty, and that the prosecution's case against the defendant had to be consistent, convincing, and overwhelming. According to him, he must provide proof that can be trusted.

There was no link between the petitioner and the unfavourable evidence produced by the prosecution, but the court chose to ignore this crucial fact and uphold the trial judge's decision. Therefore, the appeal was accepted, and the resulting verdict was reversed.

Supporters And Detractors Of The Said Law

Indian sedition law support[17]
- Section 124A of the IPC is useful in countering anti-state, separatist, and terrorist elements.
- It protects elected governments from attempts to overthrow the government by force or illegal means. The existence of government as determined by law is an essential condition for national stability.
- If contempt of court leads to punishment, so should contempt of government.
- Many districts in different states face Maoist insurgency, with rebel groups effectively running parallel governments. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of state governments by revolution.
- Therefore, it is not advisable to repeal Section 124A simply because it has been applied incorrectly in some well-known cases.
Rebuttal to India's sedition laws[18]
- Poor Implementation of Court Guidelines:
- Each time a sedition case was dropped, the judiciary instructed law enforcement on its application. However, law enforcement agencies have not followed the letter or spirit of the guidelines. Increased abuse of hate speech:
- Recent reports show a 160% increase in the number of Section 124A sedition cases. Meanwhile, his conviction rate dropped from 33.3% in 2016 to 3.3% in 2019.
- Ending hate speech in the UK:
- The UK abolished the sedition charge in 2010. Although India still retains the laws enacted by the British Empire.
- Similarly, in Australia, following the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), the term incitement to hatred was removed and replaced with reference to "incitement to violent crime". Legal Commission Recommendation:
- In 2018, the Indian Law Commission questioned the merits of keeping Section 124A. It has even proposed to reconsider or repeal Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
- For India's international engagement:
- In 1979 India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
However, abuse of hate speech and arbitrary prosecution violate India's international obligations. The IPC and Tort Prevention Act contains provisions that punish "disturbing public order" or "overthrowing the government by force and illegal means." These are sufficient to protect the integrity of the nation. Section 124A is not specifically required.
Contention of Sedition Law
This law is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is not even part of the "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of expression under Article 19(2).
- The Center and the State called on the section against activists, writers and others to silence political dissent by accusing opponents of fomenting dissatisfaction. According to the National Criminal Records Service, 35 cases of hate speech were reported in 2016. Many of these incidents did not involve violence or incitement to violence.
- A few questions arose. If someone criticizes the government, can they be prosecuted for sedition? Has the sedition of the people's law lost its validity? Or do you need drastic changes? What exactly is hate speech?
- Anxieties of Independent India After independence, India retained Section 124A. Because the new government of Free India was threatened
- So the government needed a sedition law to counter this challenge. government. Some newspapers were banned for their inflammatory activities. The editors involved then went to court. In 1950, his six judges of the Supreme Court ruled in two of his cases[19].
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950) and Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)
The courts found that "public policy" was not a specifically listed exception to free speech in these instances. Speech censorship laws that were justified by the fear of upsetting the public were ruled illegal. as well as reverse official rulings. Presented the first changes to India's constitution. the Bill of Rights The Constituent Assembly (now serving as India's temporary unicameral parliament) expanded the right to freedom of speech in June 1951 by adding three more enumerations in Article 19(2).

The prescribed upper and lower bounds are provided. Safety, goodwill among other nations, and preventing criminal activity were the three. If you have a case involving hate speech, what is the Supreme Court's policy? The Supreme Court supported the statute in Kedar Nath Singh v. Bihar State (1962) on the grounds that such authority was required to defend the state. However, it could only be used under certain circumstances. Under these terms and conditions: The mere use of an unpleasant word or phrase is not a crime unless it is intended to provoke a mob or crowd to violence.

Therefore, inciting to violence is a necessary component of the incitement offence (emphasis added). The Supreme Court acquitted those accused of sedition in the 1995 case Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab for chanting "Khalistan Zindabaad" and other anti-Indira Gandhi chants outside a movie theatre following Gandhi's death. I climbed down. A court has determined that a phrase does not constitute hate speech if it does not cause a public response.

How is sedition law abused?
There are clear limits for how the law should apply to claims of hate speech, but lower courts have consistently disregarded them. There is zero trickle-down of judicial philosophy to inferior courts. This widespread mistake requires judicial attention.

When a judge suspects a crime has been committed, he or she might request that law enforcement conduct an inquiry. When information provided by the police indicates a reportable offence, the Supreme Court declared in Lalita Kumari vs. Uttar Pradesh (2013) that a FIR must be filed. In recent instances, however, it has been unclear how judges and police determined that the text in question constituted inciting violence[20].

Why it should be abolished?
India's Constituent Assembly believed it was crucial for minorities to have freedom of organization and speech so that their opinions might be heard before the government, but the Constitution makes no mention of incitement. Article 19(2) of the Constitution prohibits limiting one's right to free speech for any cause, however the Constituent Assembly has decided that "incitement" is not one of those justifications. However, under the IPC, inciting hate remained a punishable offence.

Ten years before her, Britain repealed its own anti-hate speech legislation. There is no valid justification to retain Section 124A in the IPC, given that it was first enacted by the British and utilized as a tool of Indian oppression. The Indian Legal Commission also found a gaping vacuum in the law when they realized that criticism of (a) the constitution, (b) the legislature, and (c) the judicial administration did not factor into the definition of hate speech. It's just as bad for the country's safety as people being unhappy with the executive branch.

In the Kedarnath case, he sided with the Sedition Act despite being a Supreme Court justice. However, only Article 19(2) was read by the Kedarnath court. Equal protection under the law (Article 14) and due process (Article 21) were not taken into account. According to the Maneka Gandhi judgment, regulations that limit basic rights must be evaluated in light of Articles 14, 19, and 21. Case Name: (2018's) Navtej Johar v. Commonwealth of India The Indian Supreme Court recently made history by deciding that all forms of private, consensual sex between adults, including homosexuality, are no longer illegal. The Supreme Court has determined that laws enacted before the United States Constitution went into effect cannot be presumed to be valid. This line of reasoning may be used to attack even pre-constitutional restrictions that restrict public protest.

In 1976, India became one of the countries to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to Article 51(c) of the United States Constitution, states must "promote respect for their obligations under international law and treaties."
Why the Government Should Not Abolished
- Measures must be kept in place to successfully counteract terrorist, separatist, and other forms of opposition to the state.
- The Supreme Court agreed with the sedition legislation.
- The Supreme Court supported the statute in Kedar Nath Singh v. Bihar (1962) on the grounds that it needed this authority to defend itself. The Law Commission decided against eliminating this provision in its 1968 report.
- The Commission said, "Section 124A should only apply where the intent behind the conduct is to disturb public order or to overthrow the government by force or unlawful means."
The police and other state agencies have used colonial legislation to intimidate civilians and silence genuine criticism and opposition of the government ever since it was re-enacted in 1951. Administrations past and present have all broken the law, but recent years have seen brazen violations. The 14th Portal claims that twenty of his sedition cases include protesters involved in the fight against the Civil Rights Amendment Act (CAA), twenty-seven involve his case involving the Pulwama attack, and twenty-two involve a complaint of a gang rape in Hathras.

Displaying banners, chanting anti-government chants, or posting private remarks on social media are all examples of acts of sedition. The six renowned journalists, including Rajdeep Sardesai, Mrinal Pande, and Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor, who "posted tweets and deliberately distributed fake news" during the 2021 Delhi farmers' demonstrations, are responsible for the flagrant misuse of Section 124-A. It was around this time that he was accused of "spreading." Three of his Kashmiri pupils in Agra were accused of racial abuse after they posted social media comments congratulating Pakistan on their T20 triumph over India.

Newer federal and state administrations have worked more to enforce existing restrictions. The number of Section 124-A cases has increased dramatically in recent years, as shown by statistics produced by the National Criminal Records Service. For instance, there have been 816 incidences of hate speech involving around 11,000 persons since 2010. Cases almost doubled between 2014 and 2020, yet only 3.3% were ultimately found guilty. Even in countries when the opposition is in power, tough regulations are being implemented. There were a total of 168 complaints filed by the Bihar Police Department between 2010 and 2020, with the next highest number coming from Tamil Nadu (139), followed by Uttar Pradesh (115), Jharkhand (62), Karnataka State (50), and finally Orissa (30).

The British government passed the Sedition Act under specified conditions to safeguard and further colonialism. Such regulations have no place in a free and open society like ours. All people must have the freedom to "discontent" with the government and to organize around that feeling. In a free society, it is not wrong to speak your mind. Most countries that were formerly dominated by Britain have done away with seditious laws, including the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The seditious sections of the Coroners and Justice Act were even abolished by the UK government in 2010.

Despite severe abuses by governments of all stripes, including the detention of many innocent people for months or even years without trial, the steady erosion of the Stop Indians has not been met by any discernible effort on the part of political or legal authorities. Democracy. This is a sedition demand by provincial authorities, particularly the police, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 1962 ruling in Kedar Nath, which stated explicitly that the Sedition Act should only be implemented in extreme circumstances when national security and sovereignty were endangered.

The statute in issue has become a valuable weapon for governments to wield against political opponents to crush dissent and freedom of speech as political division and distrust continue to rise in the nation. Despite the widespread attention that has been paid to this issue as a result of many recent Supreme Court and numerous Supreme Court opinions, police and other state agencies have shown little to no signs of changing their abusive practices.

Criticism of UAPA Act and its relation to the Sedition Law
Alien and Sedition Acts; UAPA; NSA Activities; Sedition These three laws are defined in various ways and written by different people, yet they all accomplish essentially the same thing. In today's post, I'll go into the specifics of how these three statutes are utilized to limit the exercise of democracy. Let's start with the latest terrifying otherworldly threat that's been plaguing many people's imaginations. For national security reasons, this legislation went into effect in 1967. The law itself has evolved as a result of these continuous shifts.

A new law that allows the government to label anybody a terrorist without a trial was approved in July of 2019. By enforcing a UAPA, anybody might be labelled a terrorist. It is so vague that not even the accused understand why they are in prison.

The government UAPA fully remade him in 2019. After that, the government continued to enforce UAPAs and put activists like Vaaravara Rao, Sharjeel Imam, and Anand Teltumbde behind bars. Under the UAPA, the authorities simply locked up criminals of any age.

However, it is important to remember that our government does not force her UAPA on terrorists. Take Devinder Singh out of UAPA as an example. Later, this potentially fatal terrorist was freed on bond. The concern is not so much the application of this legislation, but rather its use against those who express political disapproval, are members of particular political parties, or are members of certain groups.

The government may legally detain anybody it determines to be a security risk. This rule may be enforced by either the federal or state government. The original statute that this is based on was passed two centuries ago, in 1818. Different titles have been applied to this statute throughout time. The nation eventually achieved independence and went through a series of name changes, but legal order persisted. Sometimes the law would return, and it would stay for years.In 1980, however, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, this statute was renamed and given expanded authority. The original statute was rewritten into what is now known as the "NSA" and has been in effect ever since.

Let the author offer an example during the CAA-NRC demonstrations, when the NSA was in the press for all the wrong reasons. Khan Kafeel Both Aligarh Muslim University and Uttar University hosted his address. His dismissal of the NSA was ordered by the Allahabad High Court after he was accused of telling the UP police that they were being unjustly imposed upon. Not even an apology was offered. According to Bhim army head Chandrashekhar Azad, he has been incarcerated for more than 130 days.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), which compiles statistics on crimes committed in the nation, does not have any information relating to the NSA, which is one of the agency's greatest points of complaint. How many people enter and exit is irrelevant. However, he has access to NSA information in Uttar Pradesh, and more than half of the complaints he has filed with the UP have to do with cattle smuggling[21].

National Security Act and Its Criticism
The government may legally detain anybody it determines to be a security risk. This rule may be enforced by either the federal or state government. The original statute that this is based on was passed two centuries ago, in 1818. Different titles have been applied to this statute throughout time. The nation eventually achieved independence and went through a series of name changes, but legal order persisted. Sometimes the law would return, and it would stay for years.In 1980, however, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, this statute was renamed and given expanded authority. The original statute was rewritten into what is now known as the "NSA" and has been in effect ever since.

Let the author offer an example during the CAA-NRC demonstrations, when the NSA was in the press for all the wrong reasons. Khan Kafeel Both Aligarh Muslim University and Uttar University hosted his address. His dismissal of the NSA was ordered by the Allahabad High Court after he was accused of telling the UP police that they were being unjustly imposed upon. Not even an apology was offered. According to Bhim army head Chandrashekhar Azad, he has been incarcerated for more than 130 days.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), which compiles statistics on crimes committed in the nation, does not have any information relating to the NSA, which is one of the agency's greatest points of complaint. How many people enter and exit is irrelevant. However, he has access to NSA information in Uttar Pradesh, and the most of the charges he has filed with the UP pertain to livestock smuggling.

The Growing Opposition to the Sedition Law
"incite or attempt to incite hatred or contempt against the government or incite dissatisfaction with the government" is a punishable offence under India's sedition statute, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. One definition of dissatisfaction is "hostility and dishonesty." Life in jail without parole is the maximum sentence.

Although Britain overturned its own incitement to hatred laws in 2009, such legislation is gaining traction in India. Article-14, a news website, produced a database showing a 28% spike in hate speech under the presidency. Over 7,000 individuals have been charged with sedition by Indian police since 2014. A total of 149 persons were prosecuted with sedition under Article 14 for uttering statements that were regarded to be insulting or disparaging of the prime minister. Most lawsuits involving hate speech are ultimately dismissed by the courts, although the trials themselves may be harsh. Three Muslim students from Kashmir were arrested in October 2021 and sentenced to almost six months in prison after they celebrated Pakistan's cricket triumph over India.

Due to widespread abuse, the Supreme Court essentially suspended the use of sedition in his interim ruling issued in May of 2022. "unsuitable for the current social environment and intended for the era when the country was under colonial rule," the court said, and the Modi administration concurred. We begged for some time alone to "rethink and rethink." It was unclear what it signified or when he would make a final decision.

According to the Supreme Court of India, "the mere argument or even the advocacy of a particular purpose, even if unpopular, violates the right to liberty," which led them to declare a wide component of Section 66A of India's Information Technology Act illegal in 2015. at the heart of communication. Governments must also provide evidence that limiting some types of speech is necessary for maintaining public safety. Verbal abuse is verbal abuse.

By disregarding the actual words of the Sedition Act of 1962, India's highest court affirmed the law's validity. Over the last 60 years, police have routinely arrested peaceful protesters despite a court order to the contrary. Given the courts' inability to effectively restrict the law's reach, it's quite evident that its total repeal is necessary.

India joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979, and this statute contradicts Article 19. The Code requires that any limits on speech be consistent with the principles of necessity and proportionality, limiting communication only to the extent absolutely necessary.

Several courts that existed during Britain's colonial past have found that legislation regarding hate speech is unconstitutional. labelled as violating the constitution. The Economic Community of West African States Community Court (ECOWAS Court) issued a ruling in 2018 finding that The Gambia's criminalization of hate speech violates the right to freedom of expression under African regional and international law. concluded something.

Speaking after the Nigerian Court of Appeal declared his Sedition Act of 1985 illegal, he remarked, "Let us not underestimate the freedoms our colonial rulers have gained by relying on their own purposeful laws." [22]

Conflict of Sedition Law and Freedom of Speech
John Stuart Mill, in stressing the value of free speech, contended that people' views, no matter how divergent they may be, should not be silenced for the sake of social stability. argument and public argument are sometimes required to arrive at the correct conclusions. Mill continued by saying that a well-run nation is one that encourages the "intelligence of the people."

Democracy is not the same thing as majoritarianism; rather, it is a system in which every vote is given equal weight. These remarks by Charles Bradlaugh are chilling:

Overusing one's First Amendment rights is preferable than having them taken away entirely. Denial is more deadly than abuse because it stifles individual growth and stifles racial progress. provide data that promotes effective administration.

Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code has a tight connection with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. That "every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression" is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme Court has found that clause 19(1)(a) of the country's constitution guarantees the right to access any and all information, even that which is in the possession of the government. In the case of Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the value of free speech as follows:

To "communicate and obtain information of the common interest" is a fundamental human right, and free speech is at the centre of each free society.

However, the right to free speech is qualified under Article 19(2). When compared to the ICCPR, the Indian Constitution offers less protection for free speech. The phrases "for the benefit" and "reasonable restriction" in Article 19(2) are crucial to understanding the scope and nature of free speech protections in India. should be However, the Supreme Court's rulings on the subject are inconsistent.

The potential for harm must be realistic and not overstated. It has to be immediately relevant to the phrase. For the term to be considered hazardous to the public interest, it must be inextricable from the action being taken, much like "a spark in a gunpowder keg."

For instance: The Supreme Court gave a wide interpretation of the word "for the benefit of" in Article 19(2), ruling that remarks that "tend to" create public misunderstanding are not in danger of doing so. I said that it's possible to set boundaries even without them. It is made of of Judgement declared:

A legislation that makes a certain behaviour illegal because of its potential to disrupt public life should be seen as a regulation that establishes reasonable constraints "in the interest of public order." However, this may not always be the case.As a matter of fact, it will cause behaviour that is counter to public morality and safety.

Asked whether Section 19(2) conflicts with Section 124A, or if the two sections are compatible with one another. There are three possible lines of reasoning.

The wording "in the interest of public policy" does not save Section 124A from its violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, making it a constitutional infringement.

The wording "in the interest of public policy" is not restricted to "violence" alone, hence Section 124A is not unconstitutional. Inciting hostility, disdain, or isolation against the government is essential in undermining its power.

Section 124A was determined to be partly invalid and partially legitimate in the case of Indramani Singh v. Manipur. In India, there are restrictions against encouraging hate or contempt for the government, as outlined in section 19(2) of the country's penal code. holds water.

It has been made clear by the Supreme Court of India that restrictions on just one of her eight interests may be upheld legally. Since the Supreme Court declared in March 2015 that "laws intended to impose restrictions on freedom of expression shall be struck down," Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has been removed. Only in cases of obvious causality does it hold[23].

The Nexus With Hypernationalism

A recent analysis indicated that after 2014, the vast majority (96%) of hate speech charges filed between 2010 and 2020 criticized politicians and/or governments. Most of them (144) were directed at Yogi Adityanath, the Hindu monk who leads the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, and most of the rest (149) were directed against Mr. Modi or his administration.
Article 14, an organization that keeps tabs on India's judicial system and civil freedoms, has released a study showing that the number of hate speech cases filed each year since 2014 is 28% more than the yearly average of the previous four years. It was a large number.
"They are using this as a weapon to prevent people from speaking up," attorney Rubyati Rangarajan, who evaluated the data in the paper, told The National.
One may be prosecuted under the Sedition Act if one "attempts to incite hatred or contempt for the government established by law in India." Fines, jail terms of up to three years, and even "life imprisonment" are all possible consequences.
Defendants incur widespread social stigma, including the loss of employment and travel privileges with government agencies.
"Because of the label of 'traitor', sedition carries a certain stigma, which is very harmful," Rangarajan said, adding that "few convictions have occurred." As I noted.
India's Home Ministry said in February that just two of the 96 persons detained for sedition in 2019 had been convicted. The other cases are still being investigated and tried, although 29 persons were found not guilty. This month, the US think tank Freedom House lowered India's democracy status due in part to an increase in intolerance against political opposition.
The Modi administration, according to legal experts, is utilizing the law to stifle people's expressions of political and intellectual dissent.
"The Sedition Act is fairly outdated law, but it is more abused than it is in this day and age, especially since 2014," Supreme Court Chief Counsel Dushyant Dave told The National.
The Sedition Act has been a target of repeal efforts by activists since independence; the United Kingdom finally did so in 2009. But each administration that came after has supported it, arguing it was essential in the "fight" against terrorists, separatists, and rebels. The Supreme Court of India has decided that only violent crimes would be punished, however, this ruling is often disregarded. In a case last month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous ruling.
The government cannot be criticized, but that does not make it hate speech. After hearing an appeal from two TV stations accused of incitement for airing words by politicians, he remarked, "It's time to define what is hate speech and what isn't hate speech."
A veteran journalist named Vinod Dua was charged with sedition a week ago for his criticism of the Modi government's response to the plight of migrant laborers during last year's epidemic. Especially the Supreme Court, "there is a huge responsibility on their shoulders," Dave remarked.

Citizens have been let down by the judicial system since 2014. I pray the law enforcement is held accountable when they violate the rights of their constituents.

Former House Speaker Rahul Gandhi once observed, "Telling the truth is not treason but patriotism; hearing the truth is rajdharma; and destroying the truth is arrogance." He reassured Twitter users that there was no need to wait before responding to the Supreme Court's decision.

Until the government's "appropriate forum" reconsiders colonial-era criminal statute, the Supreme Court has halted the Sedition Act, halting FIR registrations, existing investigations, and countrywide enforcement activities.

According to Parliament's Chief Spokesman Randeep Surjewala, "true nationalism, and the country's is a true test of love, and people feel an obligation," therefore expressing the truth to those in authority would not spark a riot.The Sedition Act has been temporarily put on hold due to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling. This is the voice of truth denouncing the government, the voice of dissent, criticizing the government, addressed to the tyrants and conquerors of public opinion today: The message was loud and clear: nobody should be able to talk. In a statement, Surjewala emphasized the need of doing a U-turn.

We battled the British. The UK's security legislation is an additional burden on thousands of legislators. Now is the time to do away with this legislation, he said.

In his 2019 manifesto, Congress vowed that the Supreme Court would speak out, that the Constitution would be maintained, and that authentic voices and those who brought the truth to power would eventually triumph.
Surjewala tweeted that the Supreme Court has made itself heard.
"Telling the truth to power will not be a riot and the status quo will change," he stated. The Bank, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, acknowledged the necessity to find a middle ground between protecting individual rights and protecting the state's own. Since "the severity of (incitement) is inconsistent with the current social environment," the provision is open to reevaluation.
Judges Surya Kant and Hima Kohil, sitting as a bench, ordered the Centre and the state to hold off on registering his fresh FIR indictment for hate speech till the hate speech statute is "under review."
The judge has scheduled a hearing for the third week of July; until then, the status quo will remain unchanged.
This definition of sedition is at odds with the one offered by the Supreme Court of India. The recent petition to his Apex Court by the non-governmental organization Common Cause on the grounds that the state was pursuing individuals for breaking the laws of the High Court of Kedarnath is also relevant to this debate in the political sphere. Indeed, there is. Bihar v. Sedition (1962). Incitement to hate is only illegal under the law if it also incites violence or threatens public order. Previous hate speech allegations are likely to be protected in court due to the central government's attitude.One of the core goals of contemporary democracies is the protection of the right to freely express oneself. The leaders of our national movement drafted a constitution in accordance with liberationist principles. Free speech and hate speech were topics of discussion in the December 1948 Constituent Assembly.
Freedom of thought and action on the part of individuals was the driving force behind India's national movement. But today, seventy years after independence, we discover that the state views patriotism as a restricted concept and is much more likely to use advocacy to enforce a legal definition of such sentiments. Our legal system allows citizens to seek vengeance for violating the state's ideological edicts. In light of the new sedition accusation, the Supreme Court should review the case and decide whether or not it goes against the Kedar Nath verdict.

A new petition raises some valid concerns about the misuse of the legislation. First, Kedar Nath argues that claims of hate speech need encouragement to violence and disruption of public order, rather than just producing sentiments of discontent or animosity. Second, in 2014, there were 47 documented incidents of hate speech across nine states, but just one resulted in a conviction. This illustrates that launching such cases is motivated by political rather than legal considerations. Third, it severely limits the defendants' ability to make a living by taking away their passports and preventing them from being eligible for government positions. It's to the point where allegations can only be taken to court, utterly violating people's privacy in the process. A FIR file format.
The Supreme Court's ruling on hate speech has been made more clear. The petitioner is now relying on the Supreme Court to prevent a FIR from being issued in a matter of hate speech that goes outside the guidelines established by Kedar Nath's decision. Therefore, the complaint must wait until the court issues a reasoned decision by the police commissioner demonstrating that there has been incitement to violence, before it can be submitted. They wanted me to give a command. It was also requested that judges acknowledge the problem and issue well-reasoned decisions that demonstrate the existence of incitement to violence or a danger to public order. The Constitution provides for ultimate arbitration to occur before the Supreme Court[24][25].

The Critique of Hypernationalism and Sedition
In February of this year, a 14-year-old girl in Bangalore seized the microphone and proclaimed, "Pakistan Jindabad." Quickly, she was taken into custody. Three Kashmiri students were detained earlier this year for allegedly having pro-Pakistani slogans on their clothing. The recent arrest of numerous persons on accusations of hate speech in these and other similar incidents has reignited the discussion about India's hate speech legislation.

'In India, people like Facebook postings, criticize yoga gurus, root for rival cricket teams, make cartoons, and perform well on college exams,' a BBC News correspondent said. If you make anything controversial or fail to arise during the playing of the national anthem in a public place, you may face sedition charges. And current statistics demonstrate the law's continued relevance with sedition arrests on the increase in recent years. The number of incidents of hate speech climbed from 47 in 2014 to 70 in 2018 (the most recent year for which data is available).

More than 3,300 farmers are accused of being incited by him to protest land conflicts in 2019, after his January charges of inciting more than 3,000 demonstrators against the Civil Rights Amendment Act (CAA). I was. More individuals are being charged with sedition, but few are being convicted. Between 2014 and 2016, he was involved in 179 sedition arrests, as recorded by the country's Interior Ministry. More than 80% of cases, however, had no charges filed by the end of 2016. Only 10% of his situations warranted initiating legal action. In modern India, instances of inciting hate are seldom taken to court, in contrast to colonial times. Hate speech is a contributing factor. The law provides no real protection against crime. Many activists and legal academics contend that hate speech cannot be criminalized because of the Indian constitution's protection of free speech and expression[26].

Sedition Law and George Orwell
People are being picked up and imprisoned in a manner reminiscent of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984 at a time when the whole globe is engaged in a life-or-death war against a pandemic. Covid-19 will begin to seem as a death sentence, but it is possible that public life as we know it will not return to its previous state of freedom very soon.Democracy as the new norm is really unsettling.

India, in contrast to Oceania, has a constitution including a chapter on basic rights that may be enforced by the courts. However, the Supreme Court reversed its previous views when Navraka and Tertumbude requested for more time to surrender to the court of first instance in the Bhima Koregaon case. H. Consent to the defendant's release on bond instead of incarceration, defeating the government's intent under the Constitution. The current administration only represents a statistically insignificant minority, but the court ignored this fact in favour of claiming to speak for the Constitution and the people of all political stripes.

Orwell defined doublethink as "the power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accept both of them," and this is the norm in Oceania. For example, "India is home to diverse cultures; Gandhian principles are the foundation of the constitution; the constitution does not reflect Indian ethos."

As Orwell puts it, "to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed" (Doublespeak), this doublethink becomes doublespeak when at play. The members of the governing party in Oceania engage in doublethink as a means of distorting reality.

Propaganda in Oceania is effective because it constantly assaults people with fabricated data, stigmatizes the opposition, and incites hatred. Media portrayals of the recent demonstrations in Shaheen Bagh have been eerily similar to the book's portrayal of opposition leader Emmanuel Goldstein as a traitor.

Thinkpol (Thought Police) is responsible for finding, arresting, and executing "thoughtcriminals" in Oceania. These are people who question Ingsoc's political orthodoxy on the basis of their own intellectual, spiritual, and moral autonomy. Through widespread two-way telescreens, they snoop on the public. Facial recognition software used by the Indian government and the National Intelligence Grid are both effective at what they do. By knowing who the dissident citizen is communicating with, the authorities may demonstrate guilt via thoughts and connections when they do house searches and seize electronic devices. Nothing but democracy may be the new norm in India[27].

The Question The Relevancy Of The Act Itself
Following independence, the Constituent Assembly debated and ultimately decided to delete the word "riot" from the Constitution on November 26, 1949. Therefore, free speech is guaranteed in its entirety under Article 19(1)(a). However, the IPC still included Section 124A.

Two Supreme Court decisions in 1950 ultimately prompted the notorious First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which was ratified in 1951. In the first instance, RSS's Organizer magazine was sued for publishing offensive material, while in the second, Crossroads was sued for being anti-government. The Supreme Court disapproved of the government's stance in both instances, finding that public policy was not an exception to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Only if you set out to limit it will you be successful. As a result of these rulings, Jawaharlal Nehru argued for a First Amendment that would let governments to place "reasonable restrictions" on free expression. The Sedition Act was one such restriction.

However, the new Code of Criminal Procedure wasn't implemented until 1973, making Section 124A the first crime in India's history. Section 124A of the act allowed for the issuance of warrantless arrests by law enforcement. In the 816 sedition cases that have been tried in Indian courts since 2010, over 65 percent of the nearly 11,000 defendants were tried after the Modi administration assumed power in 2014.

Since 2014, 95% of the 405 Indians convicted with sedition for expressing dissatisfaction with their government or lawmakers have been arrested. There were 149 charges of "critical" or "derogatory" comments made against Prime Minister Modi, and 144 charges against Uttar his Pradesh Chief Minister Yogiadityanath.

The number of hate speech lawsuits brought by 2020 has increased by 28% annually since 2014, the records show. time in office of H. Modi compared to average yearly UPA government spending during its second term, 2010-2014.

There were 326 reports of hate speech in India between 2014 and 2019, yet only 141 were investigated and just 6 persons were imprisoned. There were 54 hate speeches recorded in Assam, followed by 40 in Jharkhand, and 31 in Haryana. The states with the highest numbers of recorded cases during this time period were Bihar (25), Kerala (25), and the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) (22).

The state government of Uttar Pradesh also documented 22 of his hateful comments on Hasrah's handling of the gang rape case and 28 of his hateful comments about anti-CAA protestors. Critics of Adityanath and Modi, two prominent BJP leaders, have been hit especially hard by the UP administration. At least 18 counts of hate speech were lodged against 149 of these detractors.

A total of 27 complaints were submitted in a BJP-controlled state after the 2019 terrorist strikes in Pulwama, 26 of which were individuals who made "anti-state" sentiments or used "pro-Pakistan" chants on social media.

Authorities filed 25 sedition complaints against his 3,754 persons during the anti-CAA demonstrations, but only his 96 were recognized. The remainder were listed as "unidentified." Twenty-two of the 25 cases were filed in states that are now ruled by the BJP.

During his BJP leadership in Jharkhand, the Patalgadi agitation took place, leading to the sedition charges of hundreds of Adivasis in 2018. There were 47 incidences of hate speech reported in 2014, 30 in 2015, 35 in 2016, 51 in 2017, 70 in 2018, and 93 so far this year. In 2019, persons between the ages of 18 and 30 made up the vast majority of those imprisoned for sedition. There were ladies in this age range among the 55 persons that were arrested.

According to the NCRB study, there were 160 more incidents of hate speech between 2016 and 2019, yet the conviction rate plummeted from 33.3% to 3.5% during that time. According to the final police report, 21 cases were dropped due to lack of evidence or uncertainty, 2 were labelled as fake, and 6 were designated as civil disputes.

Other laws, such as the Public Property Damage Prevention Act, the Disease Control Act, and the Anti-Unlawful Practices Act (UAPA), may also apply to these First Information Reports (FIRs).

UAPA has received 1,226 new cases so far in 2019. His UAPA has been employed by several regimes in an effort to silence critics. The 2019 UAPA caseload is 33% more than the 2016 total. However, he was only convicted twice in 2018, and once each in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019. In 2015, there were no convictions. It is "illogical," according to those in the know, to have UAPA and sedition laws coexist. In 2019, "insufficient evidence" or the defendant's evasive justifications led police to close roughly 9 percent of hate speech prosecutions and 11 percent of UAPA cases.

Low compared to the criminal conviction rate in India, the 2019 conviction rate for sedition was 3.3% and the conviction rate for UAPA cases was 29.2%. The national average conviction rate was 50.4%. This is what the NCRB found.

Human rights advocates and other civil rights organizations are demanding that Section 124A be repealed on the grounds that such oppressive colonial elements have no place in a modern democracy. They argue that the way hate speech is defined under the law threatens people' liberties. When there is no danger of upsetting public order and morality or inciting violence, this rule also applies. The Law Commission issued a consultation paper in 2018 proposing a reexamination of Section 124A of the Law. Several countries, including the United Kingdom (the birthplace of such legislation), New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, and others have recently repealed their own hate speech laws. Legislation imposed by Britain to quell the Indian independence movement has been called into doubt.

Thus, the Sedition Act has been used to stifle protest, dissent, and criticism of the government ever since it was enacted in 1870. In addition, the Supreme Court's Kedar-Nath ruling in favour of sedition legislation occurred before the development of concepts like the "deterrent effect" on free expression, according to which the threat of legal consequences acts as a psychological barrier to speech.

The authorities are enforcing this unique rule arbitrarily, as seen by the increasing number of hate speech charges in recent years. The evidence demonstrates that Section 124A is often utilized to harass people for petty reasons due to its widespread misuse, arbitrary implementation, and vagueness[28][29].

Current status of the law
Despite several petitions questioning the law's constitutionality, the bank was seized. Following criticism of the "use and abuse" of Section 124A of the IPC, the Centre responded by filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court on Monday. bottom. Therefore, she requested that a hearing on the case be postponed by the Chamber of Commerce.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta referenced the Center's affidavit on Tuesday, drawing attention to a high-level decision in which the federal government successfully convinced a court to delay the hearing. Consenting to Mehta's plea to postpone the hearing and noting that the Centre has taken the problem seriously, the bank voiced similar concerns to the complainants, but the petitioner's motion to suspend future arrests under Consenting to Mehta's request to postpone the hearing was denied.

The court questioned the Attorney General on whether the legislation could be placed on hold awaiting review and how the Centre planned to safeguard the rights of persons already reserved under section 124A.

According to the Center's declaration, the federal government now agrees with the Chamber's earlier position that Section 124A's harshness may be at odds with the present socioeconomic reality. On Wednesday's order, I mentioned it. The statute is supposedly aimed back to when the nation was colonized.

The court, which comprises Attorney General K.K., who filed a Venugopal motion on the topic last week, stated, "With this in mind, UOI may reconsider the above-mentioned provisions of the law." created. MP Navneet Kaur Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana were detained in Mumbai last month on suspicion of threatening to recite the Hanuman Chalisa in front of the Maharashtra Chief Minister by Venugopal, who was called in to assist the bank. As an instance of trespassing, the Wooddab Thackeray home is in the news.

It is considered that it would be inappropriate to continue applying the legislation until (by the Centre) the review of the provisions has been completed, the court stated, citing the "unambiguous position of the Commonwealth of India." The court ruled that the Centre has broader authority to give directives to states and federal territories to avoid the misuse of Section 124A, and that these directives may remain in effect awaiting future rulings[30].

Conclusion
All language-related transgressions should go unnoticed and unforgiven. Therefore, political complaints provide at least some judicial supervision over police agencies. This will also lessen the severity of the consequences of using arrest and imprisonment to intimidate people who are exercising their right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

All police forces should be told that the threat of violence or disruption by someone who disagrees with the words or is upset in any manner is not grounds for making an arrest. No. Arresting an activist for speaking out should depend entirely on the strength of the evidence suggesting criminal activity.

See Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for pre-notification government punishments for breaches of IPC Sections 153-A and 295-A. It is being considered for incorporation into Indian Penal Code Section 124A. H. Conflict.

The Indian Police should be made aware of the following, per relevant Supreme Court rulings, until Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is either repealed or amended.

Only words that intentionally or recklessly stir up civil discontent are punishable under the Public Sedition Act.

According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, criticizing the government or its policies in and of themselves is not a crime.

It is not possible to accuse someone of hate speech only on the basis of a remark they made or a statement that may be seen as derogatory of India or its national symbols. The Bombay High Court has issued guidelines stating that before charging sedition, police must first acquire a justified legal opinion from the district magistrate and public prosecutor.

If the underlying behaviour is peaceful speech or assembly, all charges and inquiries will be abandoned and the case terminated. India should publicly and openly discuss the possibility of repealing or amending laws that criminalize peaceful speech and assembly, and then set a strategy and schedule for doing so. Human rights and civil society groups should be consulted extensively.

In light of the above, it is without dispute that legislation criminalizing inciting to hatred must be repealed. It is not and should not be interpreted as hate speech, but rather as a weapon used to silence anybody who speaks out or criticizes the government in modern India.

Efforts to stifle criticism and free speech have a long history. A previous government official has used the same statute to pursue activists and artists. The misuse of the security statute has been questioned by opposition lawmakers. However, while in power, Congress utilized these same laws to persecute its opponents. No longer are we separate colonies. In the previous ten years, there have been two efforts in India to overturn the legislation via private membership bills, but both were vetoed by the government. The 21st Judiciary Commission published a consultation document in 2018 asking for input on how to eliminate sedition, but it ran out of time before it could offer any suggestions.

Over the years, there have been increasing demands for its repeal and mounting evidence of its misuse, but no government has shown any willingness to abolish it. India, in the year 2020, will need to pass retrograde and obviously unconstitutional legislation, such as those criminalizing acts of protest that send chills down the spines of its inhabitants, in a world where freedom from fear is recognized as an international human right. However, the solution has been provided by the government, which has lately used this statute several times. Despite the fact that "cry is oxygen, dissent is blood," there is no such legislation as sedition in India's participatory democracy. It's likely that nobody ever considered the suggestions. When questioned in parliament whether the legislation prohibiting hate speech should be removed, Home Minister Naityanand Rai responded briefly but clearly: "There is no proposal to abolish sedition." National, separatist, and terrorist groups need continued provisioning for successful fight.[31]"

List Of Abbreviation

1984: Nineteen Eighty-Four
C.R.P.C: Code of Criminal Procedure
CM: Chief Minister
Cri. L.J: Criminal Law Journal
FCR: Federal Case Registry
FIR: First Information Report
HC: High Court
I.E: Id Est
ILR: Indian Law Report
ILR: The Institute of Law & Research (I.L.R.)
IPC: Indian Penal Code
J&K- Jammu and Kashmir
L.J: Law Journal
LJ: Law Journal
Ors: Others
Pg: Page
Rs: Rupees
SC: Supreme Court
U.S.: United States
UAPA: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States
USC: United States Code
UT: Union Territory
Vs: Versus

List Of Cases
S.No Cases Pg.no

1891 Queen Empress vs Jogendra Cunder Bose & Ors., (1892)
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950)
Debi Soren & Ors. 1954, His Cri Against the State. L. J 758
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962
Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021)
Lalita Kumari vs. Uttar Pradesh (2013)
Navtej Johar v. Commonwealth of India, 2018
Patit Paban Halder v. State of West Bengal (2019)
Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021)
Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021)
Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam (2021)
Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)
Sikha Sarma v. State of Assam (2021)
Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
The Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897)
Toolkit case : State v. Disha A. Ravi (2021)
Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors (2021)
Zakir Hussain v. UT of Ladakh (2021)

Bibliography
Books

Chintranshul Sinha- The Great Repression: The Story of Sedition Law In India, Penguin Random House, First Edition (2019)
George Orwell, Nineteen Eight Four, Blackstone Audio, First Edition (2021)
J.Alva-"A Constitution to Keep", Harper Collins, First Edition, (2023)

End-Notes:

Lii, Sedition, US Law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition.
Anish Bachchan, - "Limitations of the Rights of Protests", Scholar's Paradise, Vidhi Agaaz, Volume XIII 2021:
Chintranshul Sinha, - "The Great Repression: The Story of Sedition Law In India", Penguine Random House, 2019
J.Alva, -"A Constitution to Keep", Harper Collins, First Edition, 2023
George Orwell, -"Ninteen Eighty Four", Nighstone Audio, First Audio, 2021
Decoding the history of sedition law in India (no date) Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6227-decoding-the-history-of-sedition-law-in-india.html (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Indian kanoon - search engine for Indian law (no date). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/ (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
-, A.B. et al. (2022) Landmark sedition cases in India, iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-sedition-cases-in-india/#Rajat_Sharma_v_Union_of_India_2021_Farooq_Abdullahs_Article_370_comment (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Pooja Dantewadia, V.P. (2020) Sedition cases in India: What data says, mint. Available at: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sedition-cases-in-india-what-data-says-11582557299440.html (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Freespeechcollective (2021) Sedition cases: 2021, Free Speech Collective. Available at: https://freespeechcollective.in/2021/06/17/sedition-cases-2021/ (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Uday Umesh Lalit, J, Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021) Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/12755/12755_2020_33_1501_28058_Judgement_03-Jun-2021.pdf (last visited Apr 27, 2023).
L. Nageswara Rao, Patricia Mukhim vs The State Of Meghalaya, Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169973256/
Abhishek Saha, Shillong editor seeks action against youths who beat non-tribals, faces police case, North East India News,The Indian Express (July 8, 2020), https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/meghalaya/shillong-editor-seeks-action-against-youths-who-beat-non-tribals-faces-police-case-6495062/.
J&K HC | "Objectionable conversation, demeaning armed forces in the backdrop of Galwan Valley clashes", HC acquits the person behind viral audio clip, SCC Blog (Feb. 19, 2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/02/19/sedition/.
Justice Manish Choudhury, Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam (2021
Justice Manish Choudhury, Rajina Parbin Sultana v. State of Assam (2021), Live Law https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/gauhati-hc-flag-sedition-395944.pdf.
A critical analysis of Sedition Law in India - by Jatin Verma (2019) Jatin Verma's IAS Academy. Available at: https://www.jatinverma.org/a-critical-analysis-of-sedition-law-in-india (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Jatin Verma (2019), Supra, Note 1
Jatin Verma (2019), Supra, Note 2
Jatin Verma (2019), Supra, Note 3
Razvii, S. (2022), supra note 1
Bajoria, J. (2022) Sedition law: Why India should break from Britain's abusive legacy, Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/18/sedition-law-why-india-should-break-britains-abusive-legacy (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Sharma, P. (2020) Sedition law in India: Critical analysis, LexForti. Pranjal Sharma https://lexforti.com/legal-news/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/pranjal-formal.jpg. Available at: https://lexforti.com/legal-news/sedition-law-in-india/#Sedition_Law_vis-a-vis_Freedom_of_Speech (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Sharma, P. (2020) Sedition law in India: Critical analysis, LexForti. Pranjal Sharma https://lexforti.com/legal-news/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/pranjal-formal.jpg. Available at: https://lexforti.com/legal-news/sedition-law-in-india/#Sedition_Law_vis-a-vis_Freedom_of_Speech (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Explainer: How the sedition law has been used in the modi era (no date) The Wire. Available at: https://thewire.in/law/explainer-how-the-sedition-law-has-been-used-in-the-modi-era (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Sharma, P. (2020), Supra note 1
Pushkar Raj, Orwellian Dystopia Is Here, So Is The New India, Outlook https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/opinion-orwellian-dystopia-is-here-so-is-the-new-india/355027.
Voice of truth can no longer be suppressed: Congress after SC stays proceedings in sedition cases (no date) The Economic Times. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/voice-of-truth-can-no-longer-be-suppressed-congress-after-sc-stays-proceedings-in-sedition-cases/articleshow/91492176.cms?from=mdr (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Rajagopal, K. (2022) Supreme Court puts colonial sedition law on hold, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-asks-centre-states-to-not-file-fresh-firs-in-sedition-cases/article65403622.ece (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Sinha, B. (2022) In historic order, SC suspends Sedition Law, 'hopes & expects' govts will stop pursuing it, ThePrint. Available at: https://theprint.in/judiciary/in-historic-order-sc-suspends-sedition-law-hopes-expects-govts-will-stop-pursuing-it/951302/ (Accessed: April 27, 2023).
Sharma, P. (2020) supra, note 1