The Sedition Law in India Explained

The sedition law in India was, until 2022, the criminal offence under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that punished words, signs or representations that brought the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or excited disaffection towards it. Introduced in 1870 under British rule, the provision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1962 on the condition that it applied only to acts with a tendency to incite violence or public disorder, and its operation was suspended by a Supreme Court order in May 2022.

Since 1 July 2024 the IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which does not use the word “sedition” but contains Section 152 on acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. This explainer sets out the law, its history, the key judgments and the arguments of both supporters and critics, without taking a side. It was last reviewed on 12 October 2026.

Key Takeaways

• Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defined sedition, was added to the IPC in 1870, a decade after the code came into force in 1860.
• In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the sedition provision but confined it to words or acts that incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder.
• On 11 May 2022, the Supreme Court directed the Union and state governments not to register new FIRs under Section 124A while the provision is re-examined, and kept pending proceedings in abeyance.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 omits the word “sedition” but Section 152 punishes acts that excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, or endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
• Supporters of a sedition-type offence cite national security, while critics cite free speech, vagueness and misuse, and both positions have been argued before the courts and the Law Commission of India.
• Criticism of government measures by lawful, non-violent means has been protected by an express explanation in the old Section 124A and by an explanation in Section 152 of the BNS.

What is sedition under Indian law?

Sedition under Indian law was the offence of using words, signs or visible representation to bring the lawful Government into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards it. The offence sat in Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with offences against the State, and it was a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.

Disaffection was explained in the section itself as including disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. The offence was complete once the words were spoken or written with the required intention or effect, and it did not require anyone to actually be harmed or any violence to occur. That feature made the provision one of the most debated in Indian criminal law, and it is the reason the courts later read limits into it.

Sedition is distinct from related offences such as waging war against the Government of India (Section 121 IPC), promoting enmity between groups (Section 153A IPC) and statements conducing to public mischief (Section 505 IPC). Each of these has its own ingredients and its own history in litigation.

Where did the sedition law come from?

The sedition law came to India from British colonial rule, where it was added to the IPC in 1870 to deal with what the authorities saw as disaffection against the Crown among Indians. The original IPC of 1860, drafted under the leadership of Thomas Babington Macaulay, had a sedition clause in draft but it was left out of the final enactment. A gap was noticed during the Wahabi movement trials, and the provision was inserted as Section 124A by an amendment in 1870, with James Fitzjames Stephen, a jurist and member of the Viceroy’s Council, associated with its later shape.

The provision was used most prominently against nationalist leaders. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was prosecuted for his writings in 1897 and again in 1908, and Mahatma Gandhi was tried in 1922 for articles in Young India, where he described the section as a tool designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. These trials made sedition a central political symbol of the freedom struggle.

The English offence of seditious libel, on which Section 124A was loosely modelled, was itself abolished in the United Kingdom by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That change in the country of origin is often cited in the Indian debate, though supporters note that each country frames its security laws against its own circumstances.

What did Section 124A of the IPC say?

Section 124A of the IPC made it an offence for anyone, by words spoken or written, by signs, by visible representation or otherwise, to bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India. The punishment was imprisonment for life with or without fine, or imprisonment up to three years with or without fine, or fine alone.

The section carried three explanations, which are worth noting for any neutral reading:

• Disaffection was defined to include disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• Comments on government measures expressing disapproval, with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means and without exciting hatred, contempt or disaffection, were stated not to constitute an offence.
• Comments on administrative action that express disapprobation without exciting those feelings were likewise excluded.

The phrase “Government established by law” was a significant limit. Courts have said it refers to the visible symbol of the State and the lawful machinery of government, and not to a particular party, minister or policy of the day.

How did the Constituent Assembly and the First Amendment treat sedition?

The Constituent Assembly of India chose not to name sedition as a ground for restricting free speech, and the first draft of what became Article 19(2) did include the word before it was removed. The members, including K. M. Munshi, argued that the word had been used in colonial India to suppress legitimate political criticism, and that a narrower ground such as the security of the State was preferable.

After independence, the provision stayed on the statute book as part of the pre-constitutional laws continued by Article 372. In Romesh Thappar v State of Madras and Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (both 1950), the Supreme Court indicated that a law restricting speech on grounds of public order, without a corresponding ground in Article 19(2), could not stand. High Courts then struck down sedition-related provisions: the Punjab High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v State (1951) and the Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) held Section 124A unconstitutional.

Parliament responded with the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which added “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign States” as grounds in Article 19(2) and inserted the word “reasonable” before “restrictions”. The ground of “incitement to an offence” was already present. These changes became the constitutional setting for the later ruling in Kedar Nath Singh.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar?

In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962), a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B. P. Sinha upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but read it down so that it applies only to acts intended to, or having a tendency to, create disorder or incite violence. The case arose from a speech by Kedar Nath Singh, a Forward Bloc member, in Begusarai, Bihar, in 1953, and it was heard along with a second appeal from Bihar.

The Court looked at the history of the provision and preferred the interpretation that had been taken by the Federal Court in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v King-Emperor (1942), which required public disorder or a tendency to it. It rejected the wider view of the Privy Council in King-Emperor v Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947), which had held that incitement to violence was not an essential ingredient.

The principles drawn from the judgment can be summarised as follows:

• Strong criticism of the government, its policies and its officials, short of incitement to violence, is not sedition.
• Words are punishable only when they carry an intention or tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order, or incite violence.
• The section protects the “Government established by law” as the visible symbol of the State, because without it the State itself could be endangered.

Later decisions applied the same test. In Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995) the Court held that casual slogans raised without any call to action did not amount to sedition, and in Vinod Dua v Union of India (2021) it again emphasised that the Kedar Nath limits must be followed in every case.

What happened to the sedition law in the 2022 Supreme Court order?

On 11 May 2022, in S. G. Vombatkere v Union of India, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice N. V. Ramana directed that Section 124A should be kept in abeyance, meaning the offence was effectively put on hold until the provision is re-examined. The bench included Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, and the order followed the Union government’s submission that it was prepared to re-examine the provision.

The key directions of the order were as follows:

• The Union and the state governments were asked to refrain from registering any new FIR under Section 124A while the re-examination was pending.
• All pending trials, appeals and proceedings under Section 124A were to remain in abeyance.
• Persons already jailed on this charge alone could apply to the courts for bail.
• If a case was registered, the affected party could approach the court, and the court was to examine the request in light of the order.

The order did not strike down the section, which is why it is described as suspending rather than repealing it. The petitioners had included the Editors Guild of India and a retired Major General, who argued that the provision was vague and open to misuse. The Union government’s initial position had been that the Kedar Nath judgment was sufficient, before it said it would reconsider the provision. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the provision was left pending before the Court.

What did the Law Commission of India say about sedition?

The Law Commission of India has examined sedition several times, and its positions have shifted between expanding the offence, narrowing it and retaining it with safeguards. The 42nd Report (1971) recommended retaining the offence and widening it to cover attacks on the Constitution, the legislature and the judiciary, as well as the executive.

The Consultation Paper on Sedition (2018), issued under the 21st Law Commission led by Justice B. S. Chauhan, took a different approach. It said that sedition should be invoked only where the intent is to overthrow the Government by violent and illegal means, and that the mere expression of views critical of the government should not attract the provision. It also asked whether the provision still served a useful purpose.

The 22nd Law Commission, in its Report No. 279 (2023), recommended retaining a sedition-type provision with changes. It suggested procedural safeguards, such as a preliminary inquiry by a police officer of at least the rank of Inspector before an FIR is registered, and said that the provision was needed for the unity and integrity of the country. The Commission also pointed out that the misuse of a law does not by itself justify its removal, and that guidelines could guard against misuse. Critics replied that safeguards of this kind were not enough.

How does Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita differ from the old Section 124A?

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 differs from the old Section 124A by dropping the word “sedition” and the concept of disaffection towards the Government, and instead punishing acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The BNS was passed by Parliament in December 2023 and replaced the IPC from 1 July 2024.

Section 152 applies to a person who purposely or knowingly, by words spoken or written, by signs, by visible representation, by electronic communication, by use of financial means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encourages feelings of separatist activities, or endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. The punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to seven years, and fine.

Supporters of the change say Section 152 is narrower and more precisely aimed at threats to the country than the older text. Critics say the language such as “subversive activities” and “separatist activities” is broad, and that it still leaves room for interpretation. Courts will settle how the section is read as cases reach them.

What are the arguments for retaining a sedition-type offence?

Those in favour of retaining a sedition-type offence argue that a State needs a legal tool against speech that threatens its own existence, such as incitement to secession or armed rebellion. They point to the diverse nature of India, to the history of insurgencies and to the importance of national unity.

The arguments commonly made by supporters include:

• The Kedar Nath ruling already limits the offence to incitement to violence or public disorder, so ordinary criticism is protected.
• Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State and public order.
• Other countries, including democracies, retain offences against incitement to violence against the State, so such a provision is not unique to India.
• Misuse in particular cases is a matter of enforcement and can be corrected through courts and safeguards, not a reason to remove the offence.
• The offence deters organised propaganda that could support separatist or violent movements.

The 22nd Law Commission’s 2023 report reflected some of these concerns, as did the Union government’s argument before the Supreme Court that the Kedar Nath guardrails were adequate.

What are the arguments made by critics of the sedition law?

Critics of the sedition law argue that the offence is vague, can be used against legitimate dissent and has a chilling effect on free speech under Article 19(1)(a). They note that its colonial origin was tied to suppressing the freedom movement, and that existing laws already deal with violence.

The arguments commonly made by critics include:

• Terms such as “disaffection”, “contempt” and, in the new text, “subversive activities” are open to broad readings.
• Incitement to violence and public disorder can already be dealt with under other provisions, such as those on waging war, promoting enmity and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, so a separate sedition offence is not needed.
• Data and reported cases show that many FIRs were registered and few ended in conviction, which critics say indicates misuse of the process as a form of punishment.
• The United Kingdom has abolished seditious libel, and several other Commonwealth countries have repealed or narrowed similar laws.
• The Kedar Nath limits are not always followed by the police at the stage of registering an FIR, which is why a procedural safeguard was seen as insufficient.

Both sets of arguments have been made in the Supreme Court, in Parliament and in public debate. The question continues to be examined.

How has the law on sedition developed over time?

The law on sedition in India has developed through a series of statutes, judgments and reports that run from the colonial period to the present. The table below lists the main milestones in order.

Bottom Line

The sedition law in India began as a colonial provision, was upheld in 1962 on the condition that it applied only to incitement to violence or disorder, and was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2022. Its successor, Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, retains an offence against acts that endanger the country’s sovereignty, unity and integrity, and the debate over how far it should reach continues in the courts and in public discussion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is sedition still a crime in India?

The word “sedition” no longer appears in the criminal code, because the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024. Section 152 of the BNS punishes acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, which many describe as the successor to the old offence. The earlier Section 124A had been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court in May 2022.

What was Section 124A of the IPC?

Section 124A of the IPC was the sedition provision, which punished words, signs or representations that brought the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or excited disaffection towards it. The punishment was life imprisonment with or without fine, or up to three years with or without fine, or fine alone. It was added to the IPC in 1870.

What did the Kedar Nath Singh judgment decide?

The Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar judgment of 1962 upheld the validity of Section 124A while limiting it to acts that incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that criticism of the government, however strong, is not sedition unless it carries such an intention or tendency. The ruling remains the main reference on the limits of the offence.

What did the Supreme Court order in May 2022?

The Supreme Court on 11 May 2022 kept Section 124A in abeyance and asked the Union and state governments not to register new FIRs under it. Pending cases were to remain on hold, and those already jailed could seek bail. The Court did not strike down the section, and the matter was left for further examination.

How is Section 152 of the BNS different from sedition?

Section 152 of the BNS differs from the old sedition provision by not using the term “sedition” and not referring to disaffection towards the Government. It punishes exciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging separatist feelings, or endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The maximum punishment is life imprisonment, or up to seven years, with fine.

Does criticising the government amount to sedition?

Criticising the government by lawful, non-violent means does not amount to sedition under the settled interpretation of the law. The Kedar Nath judgment and the explanations to the old Section 124A protect comment on government measures and administrative action, and Section 152 of the BNS has a similar explanation. The offence applies only where there is incitement to violence, secession or similar threats.

{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@graph”:[{“@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is sedition still a crime in India?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The word “sedition” no longer appears in the criminal code, because the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024. Section 152 of the BNS punishes acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, which many describe as the successor to the old offence. The earlier Section 124A had been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court in May 2022.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What was Section 124A of the IPC?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Section 124A of the IPC was the sedition provision, which punished words, signs or representations that brought the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or excited disaffection towards it. The punishment was life imprisonment with or without fine, or up to three years with or without fine, or fine alone. It was added to the IPC in 1870.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What did the Kedar Nath Singh judgment decide?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar judgment of 1962 upheld the validity of Section 124A while limiting it to acts that incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that criticism of the government, however strong, is not sedition unless it carries such an intention or tendency. The ruling remains the main reference on the limits of the offence.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What did the Supreme Court order in May 2022?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The Supreme Court on 11 May 2022 kept Section 124A in abeyance and asked the Union and state governments not to register new FIRs under it. Pending cases were to remain on hold, and those already jailed could seek bail. The Court did not strike down the section, and the matter was left for further examination.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How is Section 152 of the BNS different from sedition?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Section 152 of the BNS differs from the old sedition provision by not using the term “sedition” and not referring to disaffection towards the Government. It punishes exciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging separatist feelings, or endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The maximum punishment is life imprisonment, or up to seven years, with fine.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does criticising the government amount to sedition?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Criticising the government by lawful, non-violent means does not amount to sedition under the settled interpretation of the law. The Kedar Nath judgment and the explanations to the old Section 124A protect comment on government measures and administrative action, and Section 152 of the BNS has a similar explanation. The offence applies only where there is incitement to violence, secession or similar threats.”}}]}]}