Approach:

Introduction: Elaborate on the concept of Sedition and relevant law in India.

Body: Explain in detail the role of sedition in national security and also talk about issues arising due to this law.

Conclusion: Write the steps that can be taken to remedy these challenges.

Answer:

The Indian Penal Code defines Sedition (Section 124A) as an offence committed when any person brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written, signs visible representation, or otherwise.

Recently it was seen that Sedition law has become the first refuge of a government to still dissent which is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression. This starts the debate on creating a balance between the need for this law and freedom of speech.

Need of Sedition Law to ensure National Security:

• To safeguard the Integrity of India: Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements. Many districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration.

• Stability of the State: It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means. The continued existence of the government established by law is an essential condition of the progress of society.

• Similar Powers with Judiciary: If contempt of court invites penal action, contempt of government should also attract punishment.

• To combat Left Wing Extremism: Many districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolutionary activities.

• Deterrence against treasonous acts: The existence of the sedition law acts as a deterrent against individuals or groups engaging in activities that undermine the nation's interests or aid foreign adversaries.

Issues with the sedition law:

• Low Convictions: Data provided by National Crime Records Bureau indicates that sedition cases have risen from 47 in 2014 to 93 in 2019, a massive 163 per cent jump. However, the conversion rate from cases to conviction is a mere 3 per cent.
• Vague & Liable to Political Misuse: The terms used under Section 124A like ‘disaffection’ are vague and subject to different interpretations of the whims and fancies of the investigating officers. The nuances of sedition are lost in the political motive behind the charge.
• Disproportionate Impact on Weaker Sections: Consistently, we have seen that a mere difference of opinion from the establishment lands people in jail on grounds of sedition. The targets usually include activists, Dalits, Muslims, tribals, and journalists
• Culture of Impunity: Despite Kedarnath Singh guidelines, it is amazing that not one police officer has been prosecuted or even departmentally proceeded against for gross misapplication of sedition nor has any victim ever been paid any compensation.
• Colonial Relic: The British, who introduced sedition to oppress Indians, have themselves abolished the law in their country in 2009. There is no reason why India should not abolish this section. The British, who introduced sedition to oppress Indians, have themselves abolished the law in their country.
• International Image/Credibility: In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of expression. However, misuse of sedition and arbitrary slapping of charges are inconsistent with India’s international commitments.

Way forward:

1. All speech-related offences should be made bailable offences; this would lessen the impact as a way of harassing anyone exercising their rights under Article 19(1)(a).

1. Limited applicability: As suggested by the Law Commission of India, invoking 124A should be restricted only to criminalise acts committed to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Government with explicit violence and illegal means.
   
   
2. Non-cognisable offence: The offences should be made non-cognisable so that there is at least a judicial check on the police acting based on politically motivated complaints.

1. Burden of proof: In the case of hate speech, it is important to raise the burden of proof on those who claim that their sentiments are hurt rather than accept them at face value.

1. Prevent Malicious Complaints: It is crucial that courts begin to take action against those who bring malicious complaints against speech acts.

1. Educating personnel: The state police must be sufficiently guided as to where the section must be imposed and where not. Eg. Upholding suggestions of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath's judgement.

Sedition laws play a crucial role in safeguarding national security and maintaining public order. Law Commission of India recommended establishing safeguards and limiting the scope of sedition to strike the right balance essential for upholding democratic principles while ensuring national security.