Abstract

This study presents a critical examination of India's sedition legislation, analysing its transformation from colonial-era suppression tactics to contemporary legal frameworks. The research investigates Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and its successor, Section 150 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), through multiple analytical lenses. The historical analysis reveals how British authorities originally crafted these provisions to quell India's independence movement, notably prosecuting prominent nationalists including Tilak, Gandhi, and Bhagat Singh. Post-independence, the legislation endured despite fundamental conflicts with constitutional guarantees of free expression, prompting ongoing judicial and political controversy. Our comparative legal assessment demonstrates that while the BNS reform eliminates problematic terminology like "disaffection," it introduces new conceptual challenges through undefined parameters regarding separatist activities and national unity. The enhanced sentencing framework (7 years to life imprisonment) presents additional concerns regarding its potential chilling effect on legitimate dissent. The paper evaluates landmark judicial interventions, particularly the Supreme Court's 2022 moratorium on sedition prosecutions, which highlighted systemic misuse against journalists, activists, and political opponents. Our findings suggest that despite procedural improvements in the BNS version, including intent requirements and digital-age applicability, substantive protections against arbitrary enforcement remain inadequate. This research ultimately questions whether India's sedition law reforms represent meaningful progress toward reconciling state security imperatives with democratic freedoms, or merely constitute symbolic modifications to outdated colonial legislation. The study concludes with recommendations for judicial, legislative, and civil society measures to establish appropriate safeguards in this contested legal domain.

Keywords