Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code

Last updated

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein sections 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870. The then British government of India feared that the Khilafat movement on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against them. Particularly after the successful suppression of Wahabi/Waliullah Movement[ citation needed ], the need was felt for such a law. Throughout the Raj, the section was used to suppress political dissent in favour of independence, including Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.

Contents

The section kept drawing criticism in independent India as well for being a hindrance to free speech. Sedition was made a cognisable offence for the first time in history in India, during the tenure of PM Indira Gandhi in 1973, that is, arrest without a police warrant was now permissible. [1] [2] In 1962 the Supreme Court of India interpreted the section to apply only if there is, say, "incitement to violence" or "overthrowing a democratically elected government through violent means". [2]

As of 11 May 2022, This law has been put on temporary hold by Supreme Court of India citing re-examination. [3] In December 2023, Home Minister Amit Shah introduces the criminal law into the parliament and said sedition has been turned into treason. As per the proposed laws, the criticising government is fully permissible. Any activity will be considered treason only if it is intended against the integrity, sovereignty, and unity of the nation. [4]

Text

Section 124A. Sedition

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
  • Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
  • Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
  • Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. [5]

Development and current status

Historical text (1870)

Section 124A. Exciting disaffection Whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, excites, or attempts to excite, feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in British India, shall be punished with transportation for life or for any term, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation: Such a disapprobation of the measures of the Government as is compatible with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority of the Government, and to support the lawful authority, of the Government, against unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority, is not disaffection. therefore, the making of comments on the methods of the Government, with the intention of against unlawful a exciting only this species of disapprobation, is not an offence within this clause. [6]

The section related to sedition initially had its place in the code, as Section 113, when Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted the Penal Code in 1837. However, for reasons unknown, it was omitted from the actual Code. It was finally added in 1870 on the suggestion of James Fitzjames Stephen, at the time handling legal issues in the colonial Government of India. [6] Due to increasing Wahabi activities, and fearing that Muslim preachers would incite religious war in the Indian subcontinent, the Raj introduced this section under the title "Exciting disaffection". [7]

Stephen's version of 1870 was amended to a large extent through the IPC Amendment Act of 1898. The current section stands very much similar to the 1898 section; however minor alterations were made at various points in India's colonial and post-colonial history—in 1937, 1948, 1950, and by Part B States (Law) Act, 1951. [6]

A case in 1958, Ram Nandan v State, heard by the Allahabad High Court declared the sedition law void. [8] The Punjab high court had also struck down the law. [9] A Supreme Court judgment in 1962 brought back sedition into the Constitution, interpreting the section to say that it only applies if there is "incitement to violence". [10] [2]

Sedition was made cognizable for the first time during the tenure of Indira Gandhi via the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CR.P.C) which replaced the 1898 CRPC. [1] [2]

On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of India suspended the colonial-era law. The court said that the law has been misused by governments to quash dissent and that it was not in tune with the times. Due to this, hundreds of people who were jailed under the law have become eligible for bail. The ruling does not overturn the sedition law, the law has only been put on temporary hold and no further cases can be registered under this law until the ongoing review by the government is completed. [11] [12] [13]

Notable cases

Pre-independence

The first known registered case under the section was in Calcutta High Court in 1891; Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose. Bose's article, published in his own Bengali magazine Bangobasi, criticized the Age of Consent Act, 1891. The Act was described as "forced Europeanisation" and a gag on Hindus, who were described as legally incapable and prevented from rebelling against the Act. The authorities put forth a claim that Bose had incited rebellion; in his instructions to the jury, the Chief Justice William Comer Petheram explained the meaning of "disaffection" as "a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred" and linked it with disobedience towards the government. [7] Bose was nevertheless released on bail, and the case was dropped. [14] [15]

The sedition trial of 1897 against Lokmanya Tilak is historically famous. Tilak, a lawyer by training, was also politically active in support of independence. He established and published two dailies—Kesari in Marathi and Mahratta in English; both being published from Pune. In 1894, Professor R. P. Karkaria presented his paper on the Maratha king Shivaji to the Royal Asiatic Society in Bombay. This turned into an annual celebration commemorating the anniversary of Shivaji's coronation. Three years later, Tilak published reports of this celebration, as "Shivaji's Utterances"; this essay doubled as an attack on the colonial government. Justice Arthur Strachey, who presided over Tilak's case, widened the understanding of Section 124A. Under Strachey's definition, the attempt to excite "feelings of enmity" against the government was also a form of sedition. Tilak was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment. [7] [14] Tilak again faced charges against sedition for two Kesari articles, titled "The Country's Misfortune" (12 May 1908) and "These Remedies Are Not Lasting" (9 June 1908). Once again Tilak was found guilty under the newly drafted section 124A, and sentenced to six years of imprisonment in Burma. [14] Despite the verdict, this trial, according to historian Mithi Mukherjee, "marked a fundamental discursive rupture in the history of empire and paved the way for mass anticolonial movements under the leadership of Gandhi. [16] In 1922, Mahatma Gandhi's three articles for Young India resulted into his and Shankarlal Banker's imprisonment under the sedition section. While appearing in court, Gandhi referred to Section 124A as the "prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen". [17]

Post-independence

In 1951, the Punjab High Court ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech. The Government of India appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which in 1962 ruled that speeches against the government or political parties were not illegal while upholding it as applicable to separatism by persuasion or force; this pronouncement had the effect of diluting the law. [18] [19]

During the 21st century, various notable authors, creative professionals, activists, and politicians have been charged with sedition under Section 124A. Cases include the then Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) general secretary Praveen Togadia (2003), Simranjit Singh Mann (2005), Binayak Sen (2007), author Arundhati Roy (2010), cartoonist Aseem Trivedi (2012), [20] student activist Rinshad Reera [21] (2019), climate activist Disha Ravi (2020). [22]

Low conviction rate

Between 2014 and 2019, 326 sedition cases were filed in India, charge sheets were filed in 141 cases which resulted in only 6 convictions. [23]

On 15 July 2021, the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana drew attention to the fact that the rate of conviction under sedition is very low and that this law has been misused by the executive powers. [24] Some critics of the law further elaborate on this point by claiming that the purpose of this law is not to convict the charged, but to harass and to silence critics of the government by the means of a long drawn out process. [25]

Criticism

In post-independence India, Section 124A came under criticism at numerous intervals, being singled out for its curbing of free speech. When the First Amendment of the Constitution of India was passed in 1951, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposed to "get rid of it [Section 124A]" as written, and favoured handling sedition-related by other means. [19] Several opinion-makers have called for the abolishing of sedition laws in the context of the 2016 protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. [26] [27] In 2018, the Law Commission of India published a consultation paper that asked for a possible amendment or repeal of the law. [28] During the 2019 Indian general election, the opposition Indian National Congress (INC) included a specific proposal to abolish Section 124A in their manifesto. [29] However, while the INC-led United Progressive Alliance had been in power (2004–2014), the section had remained intact and was used to file charges on various citizens; following 2012-2013 protests against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu, an "astonishing number" of citizens faced trial under Section 124A: 23,000 were in temporary custody, of whom 9,000 were arrested only for sedition. [30]

Critics of the law claim that sedition is an outdated law from the colonial era and it curtails the freedom of speech and that it has no place in a modern democracy. [31] Critics further point out that the law was introduced by the colonial government in India to curtail dissent and that Britain has since abolished this law in 2009. The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice of UK, Claire Ward said:

"The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom. Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.” [32]

The Editor's Guild of India has called this a "draconian law", and has demanded the repeal of this law and has also expressed that "this law has no space in any modern liberal democracy". The Indian Women Press Corps (IWPC) also has said:

“We have noticed, with dismay, a growing trend in India in recent times where both central and state governments have routinely slapped sedition charges on journalists for articles, tweets, Facebook posts that criticise government policies…In January 2021, IWPC founder member Mrinal Pande and some other journalists were booked for sedition for tweets relating to farmers’ protest.” [33]

The Press Club of India has condemned the use of this law by state governments against senior journalists for the coverage of the farmers protests. [34] Furthermore, some critics of the law say that the purpose of this law is not to convict, but for the government to harass its critics through the drawn out process. [25]

Alternatives

The following laws in India address the same aspects covered by the sedition law— [35]

Amending and repealing Section 124A

Numerous critics, students, [36] [37] former government employees including Indian Police Service and Indian Administrative Service officers, [38] legal thinkers and judges, [39] [40] [41] scholars, [42] human rights and civil liberty advocates, [43] journalists, [43] and so on have commented against the sedition law, calling for it to be scrapped or undergo amendments. [35]

A law student proposes "the following modification to the law is suggested. Section 124A should be retained subject to three conditions: first, that, the offender must be in a position of authority...; second, that, the offending words must be understood in context...; and, third, they should have a tendency to actually cause violence or disorder...."" [37]

In 2021, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla petitioned the Supreme Court against the law. The court admitted the case. [35]

As of 11 May 2022, the law has been put on hold by the Supreme Court citing re-examination. [44]

Replacement

As of 2024 Sedition clause of Indian Penal Code has been repealed and replaced with Section 147 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita which describes treason against the government. The words "excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India" has been replaced with "Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war" [45]

Related Research Articles

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rowlatt Act</span> Government act passed in 1919 by the British in India

The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919, popularly known as the Rowlatt Act, was a law, applied during the British India period. It was a legislative council act passed by the Imperial Legislative Council in Delhi on 18 March 1919, indefinitely extending the emergency measures of preventive indefinite detention, imprisonment without trial and judicial review enacted in the Defence of India Act 1915 during the First World War. It was enacted in the light of a perceived threat from revolutionary nationalists of re-engaging in similar conspiracies as had occurred during the war which the Government felt the lapse of the Defence of India Act would enable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Penal Code</span> Erstwhile Penal code of Republic of India

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the official criminal code in the Republic of India, inherited from British India after independence, until it was repealed and replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in December 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024. It was a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted on the recommendations of the first Law Commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It came into force in the subcontinent during the British rule in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems until the 1940s. While in force, the IPC was amended several times and was supplemented by other criminal provisions.

Section 377A was a Singaporean law that criminalised sex between consenting adult males. It was introduced under British colonial rule in 1938 when it was added to the Penal Code by the colonial government. It remained a part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of 2007 which removed most of the other provisions in Section 377. It was subsequently repealed in its entirety in 2023.

Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sedition Act (Singapore)</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Sedition Act 1948 was a Singaporean statute law which prohibited seditious acts and speech; and the printing, publication, sale, distribution, reproduction and importation of seditious publications. The essential ingredient of any offence under the Act was the finding of a "seditious tendency", and the intention of the offender is irrelevant. The Act also listed several examples of what is not a seditious tendency, and provides defences for accused persons in a limited number of situations.

Australian sedition law was an area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Information Technology Act, 2000</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Information Technology Act, 2000 is an Act of the Indian Parliament notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sedition Act 1948</span> Law of Malaysia

The Sedition Act 1948 in Malaysia is a law prohibiting discourse deemed as seditious. The act was originally enacted by the colonial authorities of British Malaya in 1948 to contain the local communist insurgence. The act criminalises speech with "seditious tendency", including that which would "bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against" the government or engender "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races". The meaning of "seditious tendency" is defined in section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 and in substance it is similar to the English common law definition of sedition, with modifications to suit local circumstances. The Malaysian definition includes the questioning of certain portions of the Constitution of Malaysia, namely those pertaining to the Malaysian social contract, such as Article 153, which deals with special rights for the bumiputra.

The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Indian law to prevent unlawful activities

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at the prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

The Age of Consent Act, 1891, also known as Act X of 1891, was a legislation enacted in British India on 19 March 1891 which raised the age of consent for sexual intercourse for all girls, married or unmarried, from ten to twelve years in all jurisdictions, its violation subject to criminal prosecution as rape. The act was an amendment of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 375, 1882,, and was introduced as a bill on 9 January 1891 by Sir Andrew Scoble in the Legislative Council of the Governor-General of India in Calcutta. It was debated the same day and opposed by council member Sir Romesh Chunder Mitter on the grounds that it interfered with orthodox Hindu code, but supported by council member Rao Bahadur Krishnaji Lakshman Nulkar and by the President of the council, the Governor-General and Viceroy Lord Lansdowne.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Erstwhile Code of Criminal Law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

Cartoons Against Corruption is a cartoon-based campaign mounted by the political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi to support the anti-corruption movement in India, which is best known for its sharp, hard-hitting anti-corruption cartoons. Crime Branch, Mumbai banned the website of Cartoons Against Corruption during the hunger strike of Anna Hazare in December 2011.

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional. The law dated from 1860. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband's consent or connivance could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. As such, the concept of adultery targeted the act of sexual intercourse occurring between a married woman and a man other than her husband, in which case the man would be guilty whereas the wife was exempt from punishment. When a married man had sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, no party was punishable; while if a married man had sexual intercourse with a married woman other than his wife, the married man's crime was against the husband of that married woman, not against the man's own wife towards whom he had been unfaithful. Adultery was only prosecutable upon the complaint of the aggrieved husband.

Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and provides for a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

Sharjeel Imam is an Indian student activist from Kako village of Jehanabad, Bihar. He had completed his B.Tech. and M.Tech. from IIT-Bombay and joined Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2013 for completing his master's degree in Modern History and in 2015 he started Ph.D. from the same university. He is known for his allegedly inflammatory speeches made during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests which led to his arrest under sedition.

The Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Indian Penal Code 1860 by the Criminal Law amendment Act 1983 by the Parliament of India to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence. The law provides for up to two years imprisonment with or without fine for those who reveal the identity of victims of sexual abuse in public. The law has been amended subsequently to add more sections of the Indian Penal Code under its purview.

Section 147-158 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita describes offences of treason against the "democratically elected Government of India". It replaces Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code offence of sedition with the offence of treason. The words "excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India" has been replaced with "Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war"

References

  1. 1 2 Chndrachud, Abhinav (22 February 2021). "The Case to Amend Sedition Law, India's Self-Inflicted Wound". TheLeaflet. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Utkarsh, Anand (4 March 2021). "Disagreeing with govt is not sedition, says SC". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  3. ↑ "SC puts sedition trials on hold until Govt re-examines it, says affected can seek relief". The Indian Express. 12 May 2022. Retrieved 12 May 2022.
  4. ↑ "'Sedition to be treason': Amit Shah explains proposed changes to criminal laws". Hindustan Times. 21 December 2023. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  5. ↑ "Section 124A in The Indian Penal Code". Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 22 May 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 Gaur, Krishna Deo (2009). Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Publishing. pp. 220, 226–227. ISBN   978-8175347038.
  7. 1 2 3 Bhatia, Gautam (2016). Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199089529.
  8. ↑ Kumar, Ayush (3 March 2021). "Section 124A: An Archaic Way to Stifle Dissent In India". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  9. ↑ Bhatia, Gautam (24 January 2016). "The nine lives of the sedition law". mint. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  10. ↑ Noorani, A. G. (15 January 2021). "How a Supreme Court judgment brought back the sedition law in India". Frontline. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
  11. ↑ Kumar, Hari; Yasir, Sameer (11 May 2022). "India's Top Court Suspends Colonial-Era Sedition Law". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 11 May 2022.
  12. ↑ "Supreme Court order brings hope for thousands jailed on controversial colonial-era sedition law in India". www.cbsnews.com. 11 May 2022. Retrieved 11 May 2022.
  13. ↑ Swati Gupta and Rhea Mogul (11 May 2022). "India's top court halts use of controversial sedition law in rebuke to the government". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2022.
  14. 1 2 3 Saxena, Namit (8 July 2018). "A Look Back At Tilak's Sedition Trials". Live Law. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
  15. ↑ "Panel Discussion on Free Speech and Sedition in a Democracy". The Hindu. 24 March 2016. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
  16. ↑ Mukherjee, Mithi (2020). "Sedition, Law, and the British Empire in India: The Trial of Tilak (1908)". Law, Culture and the Humanities. 16 (3): 454–476. doi:10.1177/1743872116685034. S2CID   152184820 – via SCOPUS.
  17. ↑ "Republic of dissent: Gandhi's sedition trial". Live Mint. 25 January 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  18. ↑ "Anti-sedition law needs the bin". Economic Times. 15 January 2019. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  19. 1 2 Prakash, Satya. "To repeal or not: Nehruvian dilemma on sedition law". 10 September 2018. No. The Tribune. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  20. ↑ "5 high profile sedition cases in India". Rediff. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
  21. ↑ Scroll Staff (22 February 2019). "Kerala: Two students of Malappuram college arrested on charges of sedition". Scroll.in. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  22. ↑ SAYEED, VIKHAR AHMED (15 February 2021). "Disha Ravi, an environmental activist from Bengaluru, arrested by Delhi police and charged with sedition for 'formulation and dissemination' of a toolkit to aid protesting farmers which was shared by Greta Thunberg". Frontline. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  23. ↑ 326 sedition cases filed in india between 2014 19 only 6 convictions, freepressjournal.in, 19 July 2021.
  24. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (15 July 2021). "Why do you need the 'colonial law' of sedition after 75 years of Independence, CJI asks govt". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  25. 1 2 Gupta, Shekhar (17 July 2021). "Is India made of porcelain? Question CJI Ramana should ask Modi govt at next sedition hearing". ThePrint. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
  26. ↑ "Why India's sedition law needs to be buried". Mint. 18 January 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  27. ↑ "The Indian State must scrap the sedition law". Hindustan Times. 15 January 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  28. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (30 August 2018). "Law Commission calls for re-think on sedition clause". The Hindu. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  29. ↑ "Congress manifesto promises to do away with British-era sedition law". India Today. 2 April 2019. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  30. ↑ Biswas, Soutik (29 August 2016). "Why India needs to get rid of its sedition law". BBC. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  31. ↑ Reema Omer, Dawn com (4 February 2020). "India's sedition law is just another colonial hangover and has no place in a democracy". Scroll.in. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  32. ↑ "Sedition law in UK abolished in 2009, continues in India". Hindustan Times. 14 February 2016. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  33. ↑ "Editors Guild welcomes Supreme Court verdict on sedition case against Vinod Dua | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. 5 June 2021. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  34. ↑ "Journalists' Bodies Slam Sedition FIRs Against Editors, Reporters for Farmers' Rally Coverage". The Wire. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  35. 1 2 3 Chaturvedi, Arpan (11 May 2021). "Six Decades Later, Challenge To Sedition Law Is Back In The Supreme Court". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  36. ↑ Sharma, Aditya (22 March 2021). "India's Absurd Sedition Law – And What It Enables". thediplomat.com. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  37. 1 2 Aishwarya, Narayanan (2015). "A Theoretical Analysis of the Law on Sedition in India". Christ University Law Journal. 4 (1): 87–101. doi: 10.12728/culj.6.5 . ISSN   2278-4322.
  38. ↑ Azad, Yashovardhan (20 July 2021). "Scrap sedition. Stop UAPA's misuse". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  39. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (15 July 2021). "Sedition law | Supreme Court sends strong message to government". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  40. ↑ Dwivedi, Rakesh (20 July 2021). "Don't let sedition law make a mockery of democracy". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  41. ↑ Sarna, Ayush (15 October 2019). "Amend sedition law to check its misuse". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  42. ↑ Singh, Anushka (17 July 2021). "Why Supreme Court must strike down sedition law entirely". The Indian Express. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  43. 1 2 "Sedition: Why does India follow a law that the world has junked?" . The Times of India. 3 June 2021. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
  44. ↑ S.G.VOMBATKERE (15 May 2022). "Sedition and the L BJaw". The Citizen. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
  45. ↑ "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" (PDF).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.