Yesterday, the Law Commission of India recommended the retention of sedition law in India.

The Commission emphasises that “repealing the legal provision can have serious adverse ramifications for the security and integrity of the country.” Instead, the Commission favoured amending Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code or IPC (sedition law) “so as to bring about more clarity in the interpretation, understanding, and usage of the provision.”

The Commission, headed by former Karnataka High Court chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, mentioned, Section 124A should be amended to align it with the Supreme Court’s 1962 verdict in the Kedar Nath Case, which underlined that the presence of a pernicious tendency to incite violence is a precondition to invoke the sedition clause and that the penal provision cannot be used to stifle free speech.

It added that the sedition law, which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment or “three years”, should be amended to enhance the alternative punishment to “seven years”, giving the courts greater room to award punishment for a case of sedition in accordance with the scale and gravity of the act.

The operation of Section 124A, a non-bailable offence that activists and jurists have alleged is often misused to muzzle dissent, is on hold due to a continuing interim order of the Supreme Court on May 11, 2022.

Alternatively, the Commission said, Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be amended to hold that a first information report (FIR) under Section 124A would be registered only after a police officer, not below the rank of Inspector, conducts a preliminary inquiry and on the basis of the report made by the officer, the central government or the state government grants permission for registering the FIR.

“The continued existence of the government established by law is an essential condition for the security and stability of the State. In this context, it becomes imperative to retain Section 124A and ensure that all such subversive activities are nipped in their incipiency,” said the Commission.

It added the sedition law is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech and that the mere fact that a particular legal provision is colonial in its origin does not ipso facto validate the case for its repeal.