INTRODUCTION
The offence of Sedition had first been introduced in 1837 as Section 113 of Macaulay’s draught Penal Code, but because of certain reasons, it was dropped when the Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860. Shortly thereafter, the then Law member of the Government of India Sir Fits James Stephen introduced an Amendment in the form of Indian Penal Code Section 124A[1] (Amendment) Act 1870 which was passed. The language of the Section at that time was different from the present Section 124-A. Following that, the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1898, added a new Section 124-A in place of the old Section, which was then changed by the passage of laws and orders in 1937, 1948, and 1950, as well as the Part B States (laws) Act 1951, culminating in the current form.
The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860 by the colonial Government of the British. The act among others had penal Section to handle the Law and order related to Sedition against the British India before independence of the India in 1947. Till then several freedom fighters were tried under the Sedition under the Indian Penal Code that the Nation reserves as great persons. The amendment history of the Sedition act 124-A of the Indian Penal Code was that the British crown after taking over the East India Company after the Sepoy Mutinity in 1857, inserted the clause 124A by act of 1898. the very Sedition Section 124A which was used by the British in India, and imposed on every Indian given the wider scope of the Section on “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 is considered sedition by expressed or composed words, or by signs, or by obvious portrayal, or something else, will be rebuffed with detainment reaching out as long as three years which fine might be included, or with fine.[2] There are three explanations attached to this Section. The first gives an inclusive definition of the expression ‘disaffection’ States that this word includes disloyalty and all feeling of enmity. The second explanation excludes something from the purview of this Section. It says that remarks communicating dissatisfaction with regards to the proportion of the Government so as to get their change by legal methods, without energizing or endeavoring to energize disdain, scorn or alienation, don’t comprise an offense. According to the third explanation, which also takes away a few things from the body of this Section, remarks communicating dissatisfaction with regards to the authoritative or other activity of the Government, which don’t energize or endeavor to energize scorn, disdain or irritation are not viewed as culpable under this Section as offense.
The essence of the Sedition offence is the intent with which the language is used. A speaker’s, author’s, or distributor’s goal may be determined by the individual discourse, article, or letter. The primary objective cannot be credited to an individual if he was unaware of the content of the rebellious distribution. The mere presence of a scornful mood isn’t criminal unless an attempt is made to excite such feelings in others, and the scorn and hatred must be directed at the state or the established government. Sedition encompasses all of the behaviors in which words, deeds, or writing are used to disrupt the state’s peace and quiet. Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code thus clearly shows that Section does not necessarily involve any creation of disorder An attack directed not at the Police administration but against a few police officers employed at a certain place, does not come within the mischief of Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, as they cannot be identified with the Government or the general body of rulers. The attack does not convey any reflection upon the Government authority.[3]
If the speaker’s goal is to accomplish Swaraj using legal and peaceful means, it is not considered a sedition offence. Any attempt to remove ministers from office or any call for the repeal of a law is legal as long as no illegal measures are applied. On the same analogy seeking to overthrow Government by Constitutional means and substitute another equally Constitutional Government is not Sedition unless there is intention to induce people to cease to obey law or uphold lawful authority. Any suggestion of the severance of connection with the sovereign of the State would clearly amount to Sedition, as that would produce on the minds of the hearers a feeling of disloyalty to the maharaja. Any attempt to excite hatred, contempt or disloyalty and any attempt to excite the subjects to have responsible Government independently of the maharaja (being an attempt to create feeling of disloyalty towards the maharaja) would clearly amount to Sedition.
[1] Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
[2]Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 36th edn (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2023) 273–75.
[3]Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, AIR 1951 Punj 27.