SC’s revival of Section 124A for consenting accused brings back a colonial law the country did not want

On 21 May 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi clarified that courts may continue trials ...

What Happened

On 21 May 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi clarified that courts may continue trials and appeals involving Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the accused does not object.
The clarification creates a consent-based exception to the 2022 stay order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, which had put all Section 124A proceedings in abeyance.
If the accused consents, the protective freeze of the 2022 order ceases to operate; if the accused objects, the stay continues to protect them.
Courts must ensure that consent is informed, voluntary, and specific to each proceeding; one co-accused's consent cannot bind another.
The constitutional validity of Section 124A remains under challenge before a Constitution Bench of at least five judges, making this clarification a procedural bridge, not a final verdict on the law's validity.

Static Topic Bridges

Section 124A IPC — The Sedition Provision

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (introduced by the British colonial administration in 1870) defines sedition as bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, through words, signs, or visible representation. The punishment extends to imprisonment for life plus fine, or imprisonment up to three years plus fine, or fine alone. The provision was used extensively by colonial authorities against freedom fighters including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.

Inserted into IPC in 1870; originally Section 113 of Macaulay's draft, left out in 1860 and added later.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — which replaced the IPC — does not contain an equivalent Section 124A; instead, Section 152 BNS penalises acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India with up to seven years' imprisonment.
Section 124A IPC continues to apply to cases registered before BNS came into force (1 July 2024).

Connection to this news: The 2026 clarification applies to pending trials and appeals filed under the old IPC before BNS replaced it, making the procedural question of abeyance still live for a large number of cases.

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) — The Foundational Precedent

A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 955) but narrowed its scope significantly. The Court held that sedition applies only when words are accompanied by an intention or tendency to incite violence or public disorder — mere criticism of the government or strong words without such tendency do not attract the provision. This reading reconciled Section 124A with the reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2).

Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, or morality.
Constitution Bench = minimum five judges required to overrule a Constitution Bench precedent.

Connection to this news: The pending constitutional challenge before a five-judge bench specifically asks the court to reconsider whether Kedar Nath Singh remains good law — the 2026 clarification operates entirely within the shadow of this unresolved question.

S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) — The Stay Order

In May 2022, a three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice ordered all pending trials, appeals, and FIRs under Section 124A to be kept in abeyance. The bench noted that the Union of India itself had expressed a desire to reconsider the colonial-era provision. No new FIRs were to be registered under Section 124A and no coercive steps were to be taken. The constitutional validity reference to a five-judge bench was formalised in September 2023.

The 2022 stay was a rare instance of the Court using its powers under Article 142 to protect accused persons pending a constitutional review.
Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any matter before it.

Connection to this news: The 2026 order does not lift the 2022 stay — it introduces a consent mechanism that allows individuals who wish to proceed with their trials (for example, to seek acquittal) to do so voluntarily.

Sedition and Freedom of Speech — Article 19 Framework

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) allows Parliament to impose reasonable restrictions on this right on grounds including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, defamation, and incitement to an offence. The test of reasonableness requires that restrictions bear a rational nexus to the objective, be proportionate, and not be vague or overbroad. Critics of Section 124A argue it fails the proportionality test because its language — "disaffection" — is too vague to satisfy the standard set by modern constitutional jurisprudence.

Article 19(2) was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 to add "public order" and "friendly relations with foreign states" as permissible grounds for restriction.
The phrase "in the interests of" (public order, etc.) gives Parliament wider latitude than "for the maintenance of" public order.

Connection to this news: The constitutional bench's eventual verdict will determine whether Section 124A survives as a valid restriction under Article 19(2) or must be struck down for overbreadth and vagueness.

Key Facts & Data

Section 124A IPC introduced: 1870 (nine years after IPC came into force in 1861).
Maximum punishment under Section 124A IPC: life imprisonment.
Equivalent provision under BNS 2023: Section 152 (up to seven years' imprisonment).
BNS operative from: 1 July 2024.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar: 1962, five-judge Constitution Bench — upheld 124A but restricted to speech with tendency to incite violence.
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India: 2022 — Section 124A proceedings placed in abeyance nationwide.
Constitutional challenge referred to five-judge bench: September 2023.
2026 clarification: consent of accused is now the operative criterion for whether proceedings may continue under the 2022 abeyance order.
NCRB data (2021): 76 persons arrested under Section 124A, of whom only 2 were convicted — a conviction rate of approximately 2.6%.