Sedition is a criminal offence whenever somebody attempts or incites hatred or discontent in the general public against the government through their words, signs, or actions. Sedition is defined as an offence committed when someone incites or attempts to incite hatred or contempt in others against a government that is established by law. In order for incitement to cause violence in the general public, it is necessary.
The incitement can come in the form of a speech, a letter, a sign, or any other related form. Section 124A can be used to combat anti-national, separatist, and terrorist elements, among other things.
It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow it through violent acts and illegal means. Maintaining the legitimacy of the legally established government is a necessary condition for a state’s cohesion. If contempt of court leads to criminal charges, then contempt of government should lead to criminal charges as well.
Section 124A has been criticised on numerous occasions since independence, with the claim that it restricts our “freedom of expression.” Many in an India that are secular and independent, and where democratic principles are upheld, have questioned the so-called “tyrannical” remnants of colonial rule.
As a result, critics have claimed that the Indian Penal Code’s legislation is a violation of the country’s Constitution.
It was decided in a landmark judgment of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (1962), that Section 124A was constitutionally valid.
Section 124A can be used to combat anti-national, separatist, and terrorist elements, among other things. It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow it through violent acts and illegal means. Maintaining the legitimacy of the legally established government is a necessary condition for a state’s cohesion.
If contempt of court leads to criminal charges, then contempt of government should lead to criminal charges as well. Despite the fact that there was no admonition, call, incitement, or instigation to cause disorder or disruption of public peace by resorting to violence, or any indirect reference, unsubtle statement, or even any indication towards this goal attributed to the person accused, Section 124 A can be lawfully upheld against the person.
Section 124A can be used to combat anti-national, separatist, and terrorist elements, among other things. It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow it through violent acts and illegal means. Maintaining the legitimacy of the legally established government is a necessary condition for a state’s cohesion.
If contempt of court leads to criminal charges, then contempt of government should lead to criminal charges as well.
Despite the fact that there was no admonition, call, incitement, or instigation to cause disorder or disruption of public peace by resorting to violence, or any indirect reference, unsubtle statement, or even any indication towards this goal attributed to the person accused, Section 124 A can be lawfully upheld against the person.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday scheduled a final hearing on May 5 on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Editors Guild of India, former army officer Major General SG Vombatkere, and others have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging this provision of the IPC.
In July of last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitions and asked the government why it is not repealing the provision that was used to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi in order to suppress the freedom movement.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday scheduled a final hearing on May 5 on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Editors Guild of India, former army officer Major General SG Vombatkere, and others have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging this provision of the IPC.
In July of last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitions and asked the government why it is not repealing the provision that was used to silence people like Mahatma Gandhi in order to suppress the freedom movement.
According to the journalists’ petition, Section 124-A fails to meet the international standard of ‘legality,’ which India is required to meet as a party to the ICCPR, and the terms ‘intention’ and ‘tendency’ in the interpretation of Section 124-A are so subjective that the law is uncertain and unascertainable, inviting authorities to abuse it.
The journalists argued that Section 124-A is unnecessary to protect state security and public order and that it is duplicated by more recent legislation that directly and adequately prevents and addresses the dangers of public disorder and public violence.