---
title: "Sedition Law in India: Section 124A IPC, Case Laws and BNS Changes"
url: https://anantamias.com/sedition-law/
date: 2026-04-22
modified: 2026-04-22
author: "Gaurav Tiwari"
description: "Understand India's sedition law, Section 124A IPC, Kedar Nath verdict, Supreme Court 2022 stay and the new BNS 2023 provisions replacing sedition with treason."
categories:
  - "Study Notes"
image: https://r2.anantamias.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sedition-law-featured-1024x576.png
word_count: 2679
---

# Sedition Law in India: Section 124A IPC, Case Laws and BNS Changes

## Introduction

Few provisions in Indian criminal law have been as politically loaded as the offence of sedition. Introduced by the British to silence nationalist voices like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code survived into the Republic and became a litmus test for the health of free speech in independent India. Critics call it a colonial anachronism, supporters call it a shield against violent secessionism, and for decades the Supreme Court has tried to reconcile the two through the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh framework.

In May 2022, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in S G Vombatkere v Union of India effectively froze the operation of Section 124A and directed that no fresh FIRs be registered under it. In December 2023, Parliament replaced the Indian Penal Code with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, formally retiring the word rajdroh but introducing a new Section 152 criminalising acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity. For UPSC aspirants, sedition is therefore a living topic spanning colonial history, constitutional law, criminal procedure, federalism and ongoing rights debates.

![Sedition Law in India: Section 124A IPC, Case Laws and BNS Changes](https://r2.anantamias.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sedition-law-content-1.jpg)

## Quick Facts at a Glance

| Attribute | Detail |
| --------- | ------ |
| Original section | Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
| Introduced | 1870 by James Stephen |
| Hindi term | Rajdroh |
| Maximum punishment | Life imprisonment plus fine |
| Nature of offence | Cognisable, non-bailable, non-compoundable |
| Landmark ruling | Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) |
| SC stay on use | 11 May 2022, S G Vombatkere v Union of India |
| Law Commission review | 22nd Report No 279, May 2023 |
| New law replacing IPC | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| New provision | Section 152, BNS (acts endangering sovereignty) |

## Background and Historical Context

Sedition as an offence was not part of the original 1860 draft of the Indian Penal Code prepared by Lord Macaulay; it was added in 1870 by James Fitzjames Stephen through Act XXVII of 1870. The colonial government needed a statutory instrument to prosecute the rising vernacular press and early nationalist leaders. **Bal Gangadhar Tilak** became the first major Indian convicted under the section in 1897 and again in 1908 for his writings in Kesari, earning him the famous description that sedition had become the "prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code".

**Mahatma Gandhi** was tried for sedition in 1922 in the celebrated Great Trial at Ahmedabad, where he called the section the "prince" of political offences but pleaded guilty and asked for the severest penalty. Judge Robert Broomfield, clearly moved, sentenced him to six years and compared him to Tilak. Other leaders prosecuted included Annie Besant, Lala Lajpat Rai, Jogendra Chandra Bose, and Maulana Azad.

The Constituent Assembly debated whether sedition should appear as an explicit ground to restrict free speech under Article 19. K M Munshi moved an amendment to delete the word sedition, supported by Sardar Patel and others who feared executive misuse. The final text of Article 19(2) therefore does not contain the word sedition; permissible restrictions are limited to security of the state, public order, incitement to an offence and similar grounds. This omission would later become the basis for constitutional challenges to Section 124A.

Post-independence, the constitutional validity of Section 124A was first tested in Romesh Thappar v State of Madras (1950) and Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (1950), where the Supreme Court leaned toward a narrow reading. Parliament then enacted the **First Constitutional Amendment in 1951** to add "public order" and "friendly relations with foreign states" to Article 19(2), strengthening the legal ground for retaining 124A.

## Key Provisions and Doctrine

### Text and Ingredients of Section 124A

Section 124A of the IPC defined sedition as any act by which a person by **words, spoken or written, signs, 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. Three explanations clarified that disaffection includes disloyalty and enmity, but comments expressing disapprobation of government measures with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting hatred, contempt or disaffection, are not seditious.

### The Kedar Nath Singh Test

In **Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962)**, a Constitution Bench upheld Section 124A but read it down. The Court ruled that only speech that has a **tendency to incite public disorder or violence** amounts to sedition. Mere criticism of the government, however strong, is protected under Article 19(1)(a). This became the governing test and has been reaffirmed in Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995), where two persons shouting Khalistan Zindabad slogans in a market were acquitted because there was no incitement to violence.

### Procedural Features

Sedition is a **cognisable** offence, meaning police can arrest without warrant, and **non-bailable** and **non-compoundable**. Trials proceed in a Court of Session, and earlier required sanction of the state government under Section 196 CrPC. The high threshold envisaged by Kedar Nath has in practice been weakened by the cognisable nature of the offence, which allows immediate arrest before the judicial test is ever applied.

### BNS Replacement

The **Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023**, which came into force on 1 July 2024, has no offence called sedition. Instead, **Section 152** criminalises any act that excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, whether by words, signs, visible representation, electronic communication or financial means. Punishment extends to life imprisonment or up to seven years with fine. Unlike 124A, BNS 152 does not punish contempt of government; it focuses on threats to the state itself, though critics say its language remains broad and vulnerable to misuse.

![Sedition Law in India: Section 124A IPC, Case Laws and BNS Changes](https://r2.anantamias.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sedition-law-content-2.jpg)

## Significance for UPSC and General Knowledge

- Core GS2 topic at the intersection of fundamental rights, criminal law and the Basic Structure doctrine.

- Connects Article 19 jurisprudence with the First Amendment, Kedar Nath, Shreya Singhal and subsequent cases.

- Illustrates tension between colonial continuity and constitutional morality, a recurring Mains theme.

- Highlights federalism angle: law and order is a State subject under List II, Entry 1, but IPC is a Concurrent List enactment.

- Provides ethics case studies on dissent, loyalty and the duties of the investigating officer.

- Tied to current affairs via high-profile cases, the 2022 SC stay and the 2024 BNS replacement.

## Detailed Analysis: Judicial and Policy Trajectory

The arc of sedition law in independent India reveals a gap between doctrine and data. Kedar Nath set a high bar, but National Crime Records Bureau figures show that between 2014 and 2020 there were 399 sedition cases registered, with conviction in only about three per cent. Freedom of speech organisations like Article 14 documented that a significant share targeted journalists, students, activists and opposition politicians, with many cases filed for social media posts or cartoons.

Several high-profile prosecutions strengthened the demand for reform. In 2010 Binayak Sen was convicted of sedition for alleged Maoist links, later released on bail by the Supreme Court. In 2016 JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar faced sedition charges over slogans at a campus event. Climate activist Disha Ravi was arrested in 2021 over a toolkit on farmers' protests; the trial court rebuked the prosecution sharply. Journalists Siddique Kappan and Vinod Dua faced sedition for their reportage, with Dua being quashed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Dua v Union of India (2021) that reiterated Kedar Nath.

The turning point came in 2022. In **S G Vombatkere v Union of India**, retired army officer S G Vombatkere, along with the Editors Guild and others, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A. On 11 May 2022, a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana with Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli directed that Section 124A be kept in abeyance until the government completed its re-examination. The Court took the unprecedented step of ordering that no fresh FIRs be registered and that ongoing cases be stayed.

The **22nd Law Commission in its Report No 279** (May 2023), however, recommended retention of Section 124A with procedural safeguards such as prior executive sanction at the rank of a Superintendent of Police and a minimum seven-year punishment. The government chose a middle path in the BNS, removing the colonial vocabulary while creating a sovereignty-focused offence in Section 152. Whether this new provision cures the over-breadth concerns or replicates them in new clothing is now before constitutional courts.

## Comparative Perspective

Most established democracies have either abolished sedition or restrict it to narrow categories involving incitement to imminent violence. India's retention, even in the BNS form, remains relatively broad.

| Country | Current Status | Notable Feature |
| ------- | -------------- | --------------- |
| United Kingdom | Abolished in 2009 | Seditious libel removed by Coroners and Justice Act |
| United States | Retained but rarely used | Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) imminent lawless action test |
| Australia | Replaced in 2010 | Urging violence offences under Criminal Code |
| New Zealand | Abolished in 2007 | Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Act |
| India | BNS Section 152 | Sovereignty and integrity based offence |
| Singapore | Retained and active | Sedition Act 1948, used against online speech |

The Brandenburg test in US constitutional law requires that speech be both directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action, a test stricter than Kedar Nath and often suggested as a reform model for India.

## Controversies and Debates

The primary controversy is over-breadth and misuse. The gap between Kedar Nath's narrow test and the cognisable nature of the offence creates what the Supreme Court called in Vombatkere a chilling effect. Civil society groups argue that sedition disproportionately targets dissenters, tribal activists, minorities and journalists. Conviction rates remain below five per cent, yet arrests and trial delays function as punishment in themselves.

Defenders argue that in a multi-ethnic state with live insurgencies in parts of the northeast, Jammu and Kashmir and left-wing extremism zones, the state needs a dedicated offence short of waging war. They point to countries like Singapore that retain sedition while respecting rule of law. The BNS drafters accepted this logic, rebranding the offence around sovereignty and integrity rather than disaffection with government.

A separate debate concerns federalism. Law and order is a State subject, but Central agencies like the NIA can invoke offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, leading to concerns about Union overreach. The Supreme Court's 2022 stay also raised the question whether a court can effectively suspend a penal statute, with some scholars arguing that judicial review should culminate in a verdict of validity or invalidity, not administrative freezing.

## Prelims Pointers

- Sedition was added to the IPC as Section 124A in 1870 by James Fitzjames Stephen.

- Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted of sedition in 1897 and again in 1908.

- Mahatma Gandhi faced the Great Trial at Ahmedabad for sedition in 1922.

- The Constituent Assembly dropped the word sedition from Article 19(2).

- The First Constitutional Amendment of 1951 added public order and friendly relations to 19(2).

- Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar was decided in 1962 by a Constitution Bench.

- Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) held slogans without incitement are not sedition.

- S G Vombatkere v Union of India (11 May 2022) stayed operation of Section 124A.

- The 22nd Law Commission Report No 279 of May 2023 recommended retention with safeguards.

- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024.

- BNS Section 152 criminalises acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

- Sedition is a cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.

## Mains Practice Questions

- "The retention of a colonial-era sedition law in constitutional India is incompatible with the letter and spirit of Article 19." Critically examine in light of the Supreme Court's 2022 order and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (15 marks, 250 words)

- Trace history from 1870, the Constituent Assembly debate and the First Amendment.

- Analyse Kedar Nath and Vombatkere, and conviction rate data from NCRB.

- Compare BNS Section 152 with 124A and global trends, ending with reform suggestions.

- "Dissent is the safety valve of democracy." In light of this statement, discuss whether penal provisions against speech strengthen or weaken the Republic. (10 marks, 150 words)

- Refer to Justice D Y Chandrachud's dissent-is-the-safety-valve dictum in Navlakha and Romila Thapar cases.

- Balance with security concerns in insurgency and communal contexts.

- Suggest procedural safeguards: prior sanction, magistrate scrutiny, compensation for malicious prosecution.

## Conclusion

The journey of sedition law mirrors India's own democratic evolution, from a colonial instrument of suppression to a Republic struggling to reconcile free speech with state security. The 2022 stay on Section 124A and its replacement by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita mark a significant rupture, yet the underlying tension between order and liberty endures in Section 152 of the new code.

For students of polity and aspirants, the sedition story offers a rare case study in the interaction of colonial legacy, constitutional morality, judicial craft and legislative politics. A Republic committed to constitutional morality must ensure that the line between seditious incitement and legitimate dissent is drawn not by the discretion of a thana-level officer but by the principled standards of the Constitution itself.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What is the sedition law in India?

Sedition in India was defined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced in 1870. It punished any attempt to bring hatred, contempt or disaffection against the government established by law, with up to life imprisonment. It was a cognisable, non-bailable, non-compoundable offence. In July 2024, Section 124A was replaced by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which focuses on acts endangering sovereignty.

### Why is sedition law important for UPSC?

Sedition law is central to GS2 polity, touching Article 19 free speech, the Basic Structure, criminal procedure and federalism. It features in Mains essays on dissent, rule of law and colonial continuity, in Prelims through Kedar Nath Singh and the First Constitutional Amendment, and in GS4 ethics on balancing liberty with state security. The 2022 Supreme Court stay and BNS replacement make it a high-priority current affairs topic.

### How is sedition law related to Article 19 of the Constitution?

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on grounds like security of the state and public order. The word sedition was deliberately dropped from 19(2) by the Constituent Assembly. The First Amendment of 1951 later added public order, giving constitutional cover to Section 124A, which the Supreme Court read down in Kedar Nath Singh to require an incitement to violence.

### What is the Kedar Nath Singh judgment on sedition?

In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 124A but narrowed it. The Court ruled that only speech having a tendency to incite public disorder or violence could be punished as sedition. Mere criticism, however strong, of the government is protected under Article 19(1)(a). This remains the governing test and was reaffirmed in Balwant Singh and Vinod Dua.

### What replaced sedition law in 2023?

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which came into effect on 1 July 2024, replaced the Indian Penal Code. Section 124A on sedition was not retained. In its place, Section 152 of the BNS criminalises acts that excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Punishment extends up to life imprisonment or seven years with fine.

### Who were the first leaders tried for sedition in India?

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first major Indian leader convicted of sedition in 1897 and again in 1908 for articles in Kesari. Jogendra Chandra Bose was tried earlier in 1891. Mahatma Gandhi faced the Great Trial at Ahmedabad in 1922 and was sentenced to six years. Other prominent cases included Annie Besant, Lala Lajpat Rai and Maulana Azad, all prosecuted by the colonial government.

### What did the Supreme Court say about sedition in 2022?

On 11 May 2022, in S G Vombatkere v Union of India, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice N V Ramana effectively stayed Section 124A. The Court directed that no fresh FIRs be registered under the provision and that pending trials and investigations be kept in abeyance while the Union government reconsidered the law. This unprecedented order acknowledged the chilling effect of sedition on free speech.

### Is sedition still an offence in India today?

Technically, Section 124A IPC is no longer in force after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024. However, Section 152 BNS creates a new offence of acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, with punishment up to life imprisonment. Critics argue this is effectively sedition repackaged, while the government maintains it is a narrower sovereignty-focused offence.