Freedom of speech and expression is the quintessence of democratic form of Government. True the state is authorised to impose reasonable restriction in the national interest but the judiciary examines weather those restrictions are legitimate or not. section 124A of the Indian penal code that deals with sedition has been misused so much that this has become a big threat to the freedom of speech and expression. Supreme court of India has ruled time and again that a person can be booked for solution only when there is an explicit incitement violence. However, the law has been misused this sent as some recent cases theen to prove.

Freedom of speech and expression is the fulcrum of the constitution of India Part 3 of Indian constitution which consist of fundamental right is regarded as a sanctum sanctorum of the constitution.

Under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of citizen enjoy the freedom of speech and expression significantly the media print and electronic derive their freedom from the article on there is no specific constitutional provision for freedom of press as such. Even the citizens right to know under the Right to Information Act 2005 has direct correlation to this. Equally important supreme court judgement question Section 66A of the information technology act and the clearing gerb citizens freedom of speech and expression in Facebook and other social media platform as illegal or wired and ultra wires of the constitution emphasizes the higher judiciary is increasing concern on the citizens most cherished RIGHT and the imperative need to protect it at any cost.

Shri K M Munshi, while speaking on his motion to delete the word “sedition” from Article 13, quoted the following words of the then Chief Justice of India, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King wherein a distinction between ―what ‘sedition’ meant when the Indian Penal Code was enacted and ‘Sedition’ as understood in 1942.

This (sedition) is not made an offence in order to minister to the wounded vanity of Governments but because where Government and the law ceases to be obeyed because no respect is felt any longer for them, only anarchy can follow. Public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is thus the gist of the offence. The acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency.

In the case of Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh the Court quoted Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, who while introducing the first Constitution of India (Amendment) Bill 1951, referred to sedition and stated:

Now so far as I am concerned that particular Section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better. We might deal with that matter in other ways, in more limited ways, as every other country does but that particular thing, as it is, should have no place, because all of us have had enough experience of it in

In a democracy singing from the same song book is not a benchmark of patriotism people should be at liberty to show their affection towards the country in there only for doing the same one might intelligent constructive criticism on debate on hangout the loopholes in the policies of the government expressions used in such might be half an unpleasant taisum but that does not run the action to be branded seditious section 124A should be invoked only in cases with its intention behind any act is to disrupt public order and overthrow the government with the violence and illegal means.

124A dealing with sedition and
153A related to promoting or attempting to promote communal disharmony.

Sedition cases– From 35 cases in 2016 –>70 cases in 2018.. doubled in 2 years 
Jharkhand 18
Assam 17
J&K 12
Kerala 9 
Manipur 4

Assam16%… Jharkhand16% .. Bihar11%.. Haryana 13%– account for more than half of Sedition cases between 2014- 2018

The enemy of the state charge– 2018 -8536 crimes as open chess against the states

in 2018 when compared to 2017 in cases that is section 124a and amputation sessions to Jerusalem to National integration section 153B and you EP unlawful activities prevention act and the official secret act saw an increase 

Pathalgadi movement– Jharkhand government withdraws all series some cases it was talking all cases registered in movement and protest during that we king of the chota Nagpur tenancy and Santhal pargana tenancy act in Jharkhand movement in 2017 when stone plagues and  stopsign  & boards where place over 250 g of Jharkhand stone order dismiss the authority of the central and state government in the villages.

as always the government the laws the judiciary the legislative and executive should try for solution rather than winning. 

There are Yojanas, Abhiyan run by previous, current andwil be run by forthcoming governments.This shows that there are needs and areas where the government has 22 and are doing because the standard unit of the markhor have been elected or is being a part of the corruption or has been lagging lagging behind whether it is socially economically educationally. There are roads to be made and there are open gutters and  pollution in the air and scarcity of water.

No if someone points these shortcomings and critiques the government we cannot term them as seditions. Yes government are on their way but this doesn’t exclude them  criticism, debates and dispair of citizen. 

every irresponsible exercise of right to free speech and expression cannot be termed  sedatious. For merely expressing a thought that is not in consonance with the policy of the Government of the day, a person should not be charged under section. Expression of frustration over the state of affairs, for instance, calling India “no country for women”, or a country that is a “racist” for his obsession with skin colour row as a marker of beauty are critiques that do not threaten the idea of a nation. Berating the country or a particular aspect of it, cannot and should not be treated as sedition. If the country is not opened positive criticism, there lies difference between the pre and post independence eras. The right to criticize once own history and the right to “offend” are rights protected under free speech.

Sedition 124A

• The law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860.
• Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.

Section 124A IPC states: “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, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added; or, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.”

According to the law, disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, disapprobation (criticism) of the measures or administrative action of the government to obtain their alteration by lawful means is not an offence.

It is classified as “cognisable” and “non-bailable” — the accused cannot get bail as a matter of right, but is subject to the discretion of the session’s judge.

Queen Empress vs. Jogendra Chunder Bose & Ors. (1891)

• British govt enacted the Age of Consent Act which raised the age of consent from 10-> 12.
•  the proprietor, editor, manager and printer of Bangobasi were all charged by the government for sedition under Section 124A before the Calcutta High Court.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak

• He was tried for Sedition Charges 3 times -in 1897, 1909 and 1916.
• In 1897–> sentenced to 18 months in prison for inciting the people against the British.
• 1909 sedition case–> which is worth recalling.
  • Prafulla Chaki and Khudiram Bose, threw a bomb on a carriage at Muzzafarpur, to kill the Chief Presidency Magistrate Douglas Kingsford of Calcutta, but erroneously killed two women traveling in it. While Chaki committed suicide when caught, Bose was hanged.
  • Tilak, in his paper Kesari, defended the revolutionaries and called for immediate Swaraj or self-rule. The Government swiftly charged him with sedition.

Gandhiji (1922)

• He had written 3 ‘politically sensitive’ articles in his weekly journal Young India. He was jailed on the charges of sedition. He was sentenced to a 6-year jail term.

1. Kedarnath vs. State of Bihar (1962)

• SC–> Constitution bench –> explained the amplitude of sedition for the 1st time in 1962 in the case of Kedarnath vs. State of Bihar (1962). 
• The judgment went into the issue of whether the law on sedition is consistent with the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees each citizen’s freedom of speech and expression.
•  upheld the constitutional validity of S. 124A… Sedition only if there is incitement to violence in his speech or writing or an intention to create disorder
• NOT Seditoin–> disapproval of the measures of government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means
• “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Govt, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence” would not attract the penal offence.

Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1995)

• 1995–> SC–> in Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabaad” and “Raj Karega Khalsa” outside a cinema after Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
• Instead of looking at the “tendency” of the words to cause public disorder, the Court held that mere sloganeering which evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.