Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India in Safdar Nagori v. State of Madhya Pradesh examined whether its 2022 order staying proceedings under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) should prevent High Courts from deciding appeals against conviction for sedition offences. 

What was the Background of Safdar Nagori v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Case? 

Background: 

• Petitioner: Safdar Nagori 
• Conviction: Convicted in 2017 under Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) along with other charges. 
• Incarceration Period: 18 years (indicating arrest occurred around 2007). 
• Appeal Status: Filed appeal in Madhya Pradesh High Court against the conviction. 

The Judicial Dilemma: 

• The MP High Court heard the petitioner's appeal against conviction in full. 
• However, the High Court deferred delivering judgment, citing the Supreme Court's May 2022 order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India.  
• The 2022 order directed that "All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance" pending constitutional review of the sedition law. 
• The petitioner's appeal involves only the sedition charge as he has already served sentences for other offences. 

Arguments Before the Supreme Court: 

Petitioner's Arguments: 

• The petitioner's appeal involves only the sedition charge as he has already served sentences for other offences. 
• The stay order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India was never intended to apply to fully argued appeals in concluded cases. 
• The 2022 order has created a judicial dilemma where High Courts decline to decide appeals even after full hearings. 
• The petitioner remains incarcerated without appellate recourse, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Urged the Court to clarify whether judgment could be delivered in appeals involving Section 124A charges when hearings are completed, and no fresh trial or investigation is pending. 

Constitutional Implications Raised: 

• Serious implications for personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The tension between judicial efficiency and ongoing constitutional review of sedition laws. 
• The need to balance the stay order's purpose with the rights of those in prolonged incarceration.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Judicial Bench: 

• The matter was heard by a two-judge bench comprising: 
• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha 
• Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan 

Key Observations: 

• Trial Status Recognition: 
  • The Court acknowledged that the trial against the petitioner was "virtually concluded after submissions made by the public prosecutor as well as the defense." 
• Interpretation of 2022 Order: 
  • The Court noted the need for clarification regarding the operation of paragraph 8(d) of the Order passed on 11th May 2022 in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, which states that, “All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused." 
• Constitutional Implications: 
  • The Court implicitly recognized the serious implications for personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as highlighted by the petitioner's counsel regarding prolonged incarceration without appellate recourse. 

Court's Decision and Directions: 

• Issue of Notice: 
  • The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter, indicating it found merit in examining the question raised regarding the scope of its 2022 order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India. 
• Administrative Direction: 
  • The Court directed that the Special Leave Petition be listed on July 25, 2025, before an appropriate bench after taking instructions from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. 
• Significance of Listing: 
  • The direction to list before an "appropriate bench" suggests the matter may require consideration by a larger bench or specialized bench given its constitutional implications and the need for authoritative interpretation of the 2022 order. 
• Judicial Recognition: 
  • By issuing notice, Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan effectively recognized that the case presents a genuine constitutional question about the balance between judicial stays and personal liberty, particularly in cases where appeals have been fully heard but judgments remain pending due to the stay order.

What is Sedition Law? 

Historical Background: 

• Sedition laws were enacted in 17th century England when lawmakers believed that only good opinions of the government should survive, as bad opinions were detrimental to the government and monarchy. 
• The law was originally drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, the British historian-politician, but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. 
• Section 124A was inserted to IPC in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen when it felt the need for a specific section to deal with the offence. 

Sedition under IPC: 

• Definition and Elements: 
  • Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The provision defines sedition with specific elements that must be proven for conviction. 
  • Section 124A IPC Definition: It defines sedition as an offence committed when "any person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India". 
• Key Components: 
  • Disaffection Explained: The law clarifies that disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, the provision includes an important caveat - comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section. 
  • Intent Requirement: The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of intent in sedition cases. In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), the Supreme Court reiterated that the real intent of the speech must be taken into account before labeling it seditious. 
• Punishment Framework: 
  • It is a Non-Bailable Offence 
  • Punishment under Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which a fine may be added

Sedition under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 

• The Transformation: 
  • The BNS removes sedition as an offence. Instead, there is a new offence for acts endangering India's sovereignty, unity and integrity.  
  • The BNS removes sedition as a crime but introduces a new provision penalizing acts endangering national security and unity. This includes inciting secession, armed rebellion, or activities endangering India's sovereignty. 
• Section 152 of BNS: The New Framework: 
  • This section was introduced as a replacement for the previous sedition law under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  
  • The sedition law was seen as a relic of the colonial era and was often argued to be misused.
• Key Features of Section 152: 
  • Title: "Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India.” 
  • Scope: In the BNS, this has been replaced by Section 152, titled 'Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India,' with some differences from the original IPC offence. 
  • Effective Date: Came into effect on 1 July 2024. 
• Judicial Interpretation: 
  • A bench of Justice Arun Monga held that Section 152 of BNS should not be used to cripple legitimate dissent and only deliberate actions with malicious intent would fall within the ambit of this provision. 
  • To prevent Section 152 from becoming a de facto sedition law, courts must establish clear guidelines that protect legitimate criticism and free expression.  
  • The provision's interpretation should be guided by established judicial precedents that distinguish between genuine threats to national security and legitimate dissent. 

Comparative Analysis: IPC vs BNS 

• Similarities: 
  • Subsequently, Section 124A of IPC has largely been retained in the form of Section 152 in the new Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita. Despite the change in terminology, the core concerns about government criticism remain. 
• Key Differences: 
  • Terminology: While IPC focused on "sedition" and "disaffection," BNS emphasizes "endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity." 
  • Scope: The provision on endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India may have retained aspects of sedition. 
  • Intent: The new provision appears to focus more on specific acts that endanger national security rather than general criticism.