While questioning the continuity of the « colonial-era » sedition law on July 15, Chief Justice N.V. Ramana expressed concern about its abuse. He said, « The use of riot is like giving the carpenter a saw to cut a piece of wood, and he uses it to cut the whole forest himself. » His testimony and several recent Supreme Court decisions have sparked a heated debate about the Incitement Act and its widespread (abusive) use by state authorities. The undeniable abuse of the sedition law forced the Supreme Court to reconsider this archaic law. In 2009, the United Kingdom abolished sedition as a criminal offence, and its abolition was done to preserve the freedom of expression and opinion of the British press and people. Conclusion – The conclusion reached after examining the law on incitement to hatred in different countries is that the courts and legislators have tried to strike a balance between individual rights and the interest in protecting the state. Although few have chosen to ban it completely, few have kept it as a last resort. But it goes without saying that freedom of expression and opinion has been interpreted with great caution and, with due diligence in this matter, and regardless of whether countries have chosen to retain or suppress it, they have done their best to protect and preserve it. But rest assured that we can be sure that the Supreme Court of India will do everything possible to find the perfect balance between our fundamental rights and the interests of the state. Time and the Honourable Supreme Court will be the judges on the future of Section 124A in the Republic of India. Successive reports by the Law Commission of India and even the Supreme Court have highlighted the widespread abuse of the Incitement Act. Kedar Nath`s directives and a textual deviation from the law place the responsibility on the police, who register a case to distinguish between legitimate speech and inflammatory speech.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Centre and the states to suspend all ongoing trials, appeals and proceedings relating to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to the offence of sedition until the central government completes the promised exercise of reviewing and revising the provision. The Constituent Assembly debated sedition as an exception to the fundamental right to freedom of expression and opinion guaranteed by the Constitution, but several members vehemently opposed it, and the word is not included in the document. A constitutional chamber composed of five judges annulled previous decisions of the Supreme Court and upheld the constitutional validity of section 124A of the Criminal Code. However, the court tried to limit its possibilities for abuse. The court ruled that criticism of the government can only be characterized as a riot if it is accompanied by incitement or incitement to violence. The decision limited sedition only to the extent that inflammatory statements tended to incite « public disorder » – a phrase that Section 124A itself does not contain, but which was interpreted by the court. Although Thomas Macaulay, who drafted the Indian Penal Code, included the Riot Act, it was not included in the Indian Penal Code. Legal experts believe that this omission was accidental.

In 1890, sedition was criminalized under Section 124A of the Penal Code by Special Act XVII. While there may be enthusiasm for the possible elimination of the insurgency in the country, there is scope for reforming the provisions of Article 124A of the CPI, as proposed by the majority of private membership laws. Even the Legal Affairs Committee, in its consultation paper, considers riots to be essential to protect national integrity. Some of the reforms could include: Australia repealed its incentive law in 2010, and last year Singapore also repealed the law, as several new laws can adequately cover the actual need for a sedition law without its deterrent effects. Freedom of expression and opinion is the hallmark of a democracy undermined by the Incitement Act. A democracy requires citizens to actively participate in debates and express constructive criticism of government policies. However, the sedition laws empowered the executive branch of government to use the ambiguously defined provision as a tool to regulate public opinion and exercise power indiscriminately. The incentive law has become a tool for citizens to comply with government policies. There have been many instances where the government has used the incitement law to suppress protest voices in order to protect its interests. The arrest of NDTV journalist Vinod Dua for criticizing the government`s response to COVID-19 and Disha Ravi, 22, in the Greta Thunberg Toolkit case for tweeting in solidarity with farmers` unrest in India has raised many questions about freedom of speech and expression in India. When journalists are censored by the incitement law, it affects democracy.

Sedition laws reduce government accountability because the government is able to ignore its critics and accuse them in turn of sedition. This provision was widely used to curb political dissent during the independence movement. Several pre-independence cases involving Section 124A of the Penal Code are against famous freedom fighters, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Shaukat and Mohammad Ali, Maulana Azad and Mahatma Gandhi. It was during this period that the most notable trial for sedition took place in 1898 – the Queen Empress against Bal Gangadhar Tilak. What is even more worrisome, however, is that it is extremely difficult to obtain bail after arrest under the Incentive Act, as the process can take a long time. This leads to the harassment of innocent people and makes others afraid to speak out against the government. The case of the Kashmiri students in Hubli is an example of the difficulty of obtaining bail in a sedition case, as they were released on bail after 100 days in police custody. Indian courts have considered the interpretation of Section 124A on several occasions and have determined the conditions under which speech can be considered inflammatory.

For example, the Kedarnath Supreme Court v. Bihar limited riots to « activities involving incitement to violence or an intention or tendency to create disturbances of public order or disturb the peace. » Furthermore, Balwant Singh vs Union of India categorically stated that « any expression of criticism is not an uproar and the true intent of the speech must be taken into account before it is disseminated as a seditious act. » Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Pankaj Butalia vs Central Board of Film Certification ruled that sedition must be judged on the basis of intent and that speech « must be judged holistically and fairly without giving undue weight to isolated passages ».