Since 2022, sedition cases across the country have been left hanging. After the Supreme Court put Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on hold and told governments not to register fresh cases, many pending trials and appeals stopped midway. An order meant to protect people from misuse of the law ended up keeping several accused persons stuck for years in jail while their cases remained undecided.
The SC’s May 21 clarification partly resolves that problem. The court said proceedings may continue if the accused wants the case to move forward. The clarification arose during the hearing of a Madhya Pradesh prisoner who spent 17 years in custody. His appeal remained stalled because sedition was one among several charges in the case. The court thus recognised an important reality: delay itself can become punishment.
The court put sedition cases on hold in 2022 after Centre told it that the colonial-era sedition law under Section 124A would be reviewed. The court then asked governments not to file new sedition cases and halted pending proceedings while challenges to the constitutional validity of Section 124A remained pending before it. The idea was to suspend the use of the provision until the court decided whether the law itself was constitutional.
However, the interim safeguard gradually created prolonged uncertainty. In many cases, sedition charges were accompanied by allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act and other criminal laws. Once courts treated the freeze as absolute, even connected appeals and trials slowed down.
For prisoners seeking acquittal, bail or suspension of sentence, the delays became prolonged. Available National Crime Records Bureau data show that 399 sedition cases were registered between 2014 and 2020, while convictions remained low.
The clarification is, therefore, welcome, but it also exposes the unresolved confusion surrounding sedition law in India. The old IPC has already been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, Section 152 of the new code punishes acts said to threaten India’s sovereignty, unity and integrity. Though the term ‘sedition’ has disappeared, critics argue that the substance survives in broader language and with harsher penalties.
The Supreme Court has now addressed one immediate unfairness faced by accused persons. It should next decide whether offences under both provisions are compatible with constitutional guarantees of free speech and liberty, rather than allowing prolonged uncertainty over the scope of such laws.
