Coerced consent: On sedition

📌 Summary:

• Context: The Indian state has long used the colonial offence of sedition (Section 124A IPC) as a tool to quell dissent.
• In May 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, the Supreme Court asked State and central governments to refrain from registering new FIRs and from coercive measures under Section 124A while constitutionality was examined; the Centre promised to "reconsider" the provision.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), effective 2024, replaced Section 124A with Section 152 and raised the minimum sentence to seven years — "sedition by a new name".
• In February 2026, CJI Surya Kant orally observed that the Centre's 2022 promise to review the provision could not bind Parliament.
• Core argument / trigger: On May 21, 2026, the Court said courts may proceed with Section 124A cases if the accused "has no objection" — the editorial argues such consent is effectively coerced.
• Causal chain — why this is harmful: (1) Consent may be coerced because the alternative for incarcerated, poorly-represented accused is indefinite delay — a Hobson's choice between bad and worse; (2) it contradicts the 'bail is the rule' principle reaffirmed in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi — the Court should have paired continuation of trials with a presumption of bail; (3) wealthier or politically connected accused can secure bail and wait out proceedings outside prison, while poorer undertrials must consent to trial just to obtain a verdict, so liberty depends on capacity to litigate rather than legal principle; (4) it creates a perverse incentive for bad-faith state actors to leave constitutionally-contested cases in limbo while the accused remain jailed.
• Solution proposed: The Court should determine once and for all whether sedition is constitutionally sustainable rather than passing the burden to the accused; the editorial holds the Supreme Court should set aside sedition as constitutionally unsustainable.

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 — functioning of the Judiciary, Fundamental Rights (free speech), and criminal law reform; the tension between liberty and procedure in constitutionally-contested offences.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Section 124A IPC = sedition; replaced by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
• S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India (2022) stayed fresh use of Section 124A
• Syed Iftikhar Andrabi ruling reinforced the 'bail is the rule' principle
• BNS Section 152 carries a minimum sentence of seven years

🔑 Key Term: Sedition (Section 124A IPC / Section 152 BNS) — criminalises words or acts that bring or attempt to bring hatred or contempt towards, or excite disaffection against, the lawfully established government.