DO WE REALLY NEED SEDITION LAWS IN INDIA?

We take a look at what the law says about sedition:

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 1India, 1 shall be punished with 1imprisonment 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 with a view 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.

Classification of offence

Punishment—Imprisonment for life and fine, or imprisonment for 3 years and fine, or fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Court of Session—Non- compoundable.

Comments

The offence of sedition under section 124A is the doing of certain acts which would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt, or create disaffection against it; Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) Supreme Today 127.

1. Subs. by Act 4 of 1898, s. 4, for the original s. 124A which had been ins. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 5.

2. The words “Her Majesty or” omitted by the A.O. 1950. The words “or the Crown Representative inserted after the word “Majesty” by the A.O. 1937 were omitted by the A.O. 1948.

3. The words “British India” have successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948, the A.O.1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec.3 and sch. to read as above.

4. The words “or “British Burma” ins. by the A.O.1937 omitted by the A.O.1948.

5. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec.117 and sch., for “Transportation for life or any shorter term” (w.e.f.1-1-1956).

 

 

We need your views on the same.. Let us debate this on 17th January 2017 between 7 pm to 9 pm…

Drop in your comments..  Skip the website text box..

litson.stephen

12 Comments

  • Divya Sadhwani January 17, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    We really need to amend this..as according to the situation in our country..people have really not understood what the law says..and police arrest people unnecessarily ..In our country India..people really do not respect out country from within..and if they would be given the liberty to say anything , then people will cross their limits..so sedition laws need to be amended and only those should come under the ambit of sedition who talks ill about our nation..having a view is a different thing but instigating people to hate the nation , or speaking false statements against the government is not done..as people should not be given absolute liberty..people can have their views but at a certain extent they should stop if it’s against the government or nation..it’s really important for every individual to respect our nation , standing in national anthem..this is not the personal choice of a person , it’s our duty to do that..if people want their rights they should also abide by the duties given in our Constitution..

    Reply
    • litson.stephen January 17, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      I surely agree to this.. But I believe protesting is a better way to show what we suffer.. So that more people get to know that..

      If we support every what the government say it won’t make me a Desh Bhakt but a Modi Bhakt…

      Reply
      • Nishant Saklecha January 17, 2017 at 2:19 pm

        It would not you make you modi Bhakt speaking against government is justified but provoking the AAM ADMI would make you a proud Indian citizen . Protest in such a way that it does not provoke the common man

        Reply
  • litson.stephen January 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    I doubt everything I see. Does that make me a bad Indian? Does doubting the government and protesting against it not right?

    Reply
    • Divya Sadhwani January 17, 2017 at 1:56 pm

      That is k my what I said..we need to amend it..protesting for what is not right is good..protesting for policies against the people is done..bug for that u will not hurt the sentiments for nation.still you have to respect the nation..and said absolute liberty would be harmful for the people..as in India people are still not educated enough , so there is still a need to do not give absolute liberty to people who do not know how to use it..

      Reply
  • Divya Sadhwani January 17, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    It’s not about Modi bhakt..what i m trying to say is protesting so that people should understand what is right and wrong..but not manipulating people to do protest against what is right..it is very good to have a individual opinion but in India there are people who always support a particular party and they always talk as if party at other end is always wrong..and people show aggression by disrespecting the nation..it can be any party at the end u have to respect the nation.

    Reply
  • Prasanna Shukla January 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Yes sir there must be right to protests,if india is democratic country then people can criticize government.
    But I want to ask one thing is Afzal zindabad comes under protest against goverment.
    Bhart tere tukde honge was right ,we need freedom slogan are Right,people can’t see the flags of pak which we have seen several time by students.
    We can’t tolerate burning of Tirana,so I think this is different from criticize,

    Reply
  • Prasanna shukla January 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    There should be laws and division between anti national activities and criticism

    Reply
  • Meenal Garg January 17, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    We cannot completely oust the application of sedition laws. The same has been held in Kedar nath’s case. However, in the same case it has been strictly ordered by hon’ble sc that a charge of sedition should be put upon an accused after careful scrutiny. Moreover, i am in favour of a complete amendment of this section in light of law commission’ s recommendations.

    Reply
  • Ritika sahni January 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Criticism against the government policies and decisions within a reasonable limit that does not incite people to rebel is consistent with freedom of speech and expression. Currently the section is slapped against any discording entity, without any fairness which needs to be corrected. Only when it amounts to an incitement to violence, such sections should be brought in.

    Reply
    • litson.stephen January 17, 2017 at 3:04 pm

      What happened in JNU was a peaceful assembly. No arms were carried.. Afzal Guru was not a main face of the blast. What Supreme Court did without giving him a fair opportunity was a bad deed.

      Reply
  • Divya Sadhwani January 17, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Afsal guru implemented that blast.and if he used explosive bombs and that was not the way to rebel against the government..to go and finish the life of people ..that was not done..and the punishment he got by our judiciary is a good decision by the judiciary of India..and now talking about JNU if people want rights of expression they need to first respect the national duties..not using arms does not mean u have rhe right to speak whatever u want to about your nation..it’s just that if u are living in a particular country, enjoying rights given by the Constitution.then you should also respects the nation which has given you all this.. Everybody can talk good about other countries but one cannot disrespect the nation..

    Reply

Leave a Reply