Whether a colonial era law such as section 124A of APC has relevance in a modern democratic state?

1) ‘Article 14’ has shown how Section 124-A is used in practice, with a conviction rate as low as
0.1% between 2010 and 2021. Despite the low conviction rate, cases filed under Section 124-A
impose significant financial and resource burdens on small organisations and freelance
journalists. The threat of prosecution effectively compels journalists to self-censor, refraining
from publishing controversial or critical content, regardless of its legality.
2) One of the main problems with the sedition law with its key points like “bring into hatred or
contempt” or “attempt to excite disaffection” is that it is poorly defined and vague. The vast
possibilities of interpretations, as to what exactly is seditious empower the police and
government to arrest innocent citizens who are across the fence from them. Delhi High Court
ruled in the Disha Ravi case stating that the government cannot put citizens “behind bars simply
because they chose to disagree with the state policies” and “the offence of sedition cannot be
invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments.”
3) Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on May 11, 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India
(2022) has acknowledged the Government’s recognition of the inadvertent misuse of the law of
Sedition as highlighted by the petitioners. The Court commended the Government’s
commitment to reassess the provisions of Section 124A. Consequently, the court,placed the law
of sedition in abeyance until further notice. The court instructed the state and central
government to abstain from taking coercive measure during ongoing consideration, and asked
the lower courts to grant relief in event of any new Sedition case.
4) In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, a 2 judge bench of Indian Supreme Court upheld citizens’
freedom to criticize the government as long as he does not incite people to violence against the
government established by law or with the intent of causing public disorder and Section 124A to
be evoked only in a case where the words have a clear intent to create public disorder. Similarly,
Vinod Gavaskar cannot be held liable for bringing Into attention , especially during the time of
the pandemic , the situation of the nation , in order so that the layman can better understand
the predicament.
5) In the case of Rajat Sharma v. Union of India, Farooq Abdullah had talked on “restoring Article
370” with “China’s support,” according to Rajat Sharma and Neh Srivastava’s petition, had
claimed punishment under Section 124-A of the India Penal Code, 1860 for Mr Abdullah. A 2
judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on petitioners for filing a
“publicity interest litigation” seeking the initiation of proceedings against former J&K Chief
Ministers Farooq Abdullah for his “pro-China” comments regarding the abrogation of Article 370
of the Indian Constitution. The bench went ahead to observe that it is not possible to call,
expressing a point of view that differs from a decision made by the Central Government, as
seditious. There was nothing in the statement that the Apex Court considers insulting enough to
justify a court’s proceedings to be initiated.
6) In SanskarMarathevs The State of Maharashtra, AseemTrivedi, a political cartoonist and social
activist, displayed several cartoons at a public meeting in Mumbai. He uploaded some of the
cartoons online on a website called ‘Cartoons Against Corruption.’ He was accused of defaming
Parliament, the Constitution of India, and the Ashok Emblem, and also of sedition under Section
 124A. Following the interpretation of the Kedarnath Case, the Bombay High Court held that
“strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of government with a view to
their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section.” The Court
noted that “cartoons and caricatures are a form of expression with an element of Humour and
Sarcasm.” Furthermore it was held that even if cartoons are devoid of wit and humour , as long
as they do not incite public disorder or violence , it does not amount to sarcasm.
7) In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab14– Balwant Singh and another person were acquitted by the
Indian Supreme Court after being charged with sedition for raising slogans like “Khalistan
Zindabad” after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The court ruled that the
casual raising of slogans, without any intention to incite violence or create public disorder, did
not constitute sedition. This judgment emphasized the need to distinguish between genuine acts
of sedition and mere expression of discontent. Hence, Neither Ms. Shristi Sahu nor Mr.Vinod
Gavaskar should be indicted on this chargeIn Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab15 , it was also
held by the Indian Supreme Court that “Strong speeches” and “Vigorous Words are not enough
“ for sedition , held Supreme Court ; Hence Naman Somany John, should not be charged for
sedition either.
8) The arrest of both Mr. Kimchi and Mr. Dhokla is a violation of their freedom of speech and
expression. Criticizing government officials, including the Chief Minister, is a legitimate exercise
of freedom of speech and expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Arlenland
Constitution. Such criticism is essential for fostering transparency, accountability, and public
debate in a democratic society. In the case of Kishorechandra Wangkemcha v. Union of India, a
petition filed by the Journalist Union of Assam (JUA), the Indian Supreme Court has directed the
governments to not use Section 124A. Through its interim order dated May 11, 2022 (‘Order’),
which goes a long way in protecting the freedom of speech and expression across the country.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Petitioner respectfully and most humbly prays that prays that the Hon’ble Court would be
graciously pleased - 1. To quash the law on Sedition contained under Section 124A APC as it is
unconstitutional being violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Arlenland Constitution.
2. To request to the Law Commission of Arlenland to frame a new laws on National security in
place of Section 124A of APC.
3. To give a stay on the operation of Section 124A APC with immediate effect and grant
appropriate remedial measures to all the Petitioners who are arrested and detained in jail
without bail so far.
And/or Any other order that your Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
All of which is most humbly submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner.
Thus I rest my case.