Author: Sahith Mandapalli

Abstract: This paper provides a historical and comparative analysis of sedition laws in liberal democracies, focusing on England, the United States, and India. While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic governance, its limits—particularly concerning speech deemed seditious—reveal tensions between state security and civil liberties. The study traces the evolution of sedition from its origins in English common law, where it was used to suppress dissent before its eventual abolition in 2009, to its contested application in the U.S. under the Alien and Sedition Acts and later judicial refinements like the "imminent lawless action" test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In contrast, India’s retention of its colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) demonstrates its continued use as a tool to criminalize political dissent, despite judicial attempts to narrow its scope. Through case studies and legal analysis, the paper highlights the politicization of sedition in contemporary India, where accusations often target activists, journalists, and protesters with little evidentiary basis. A comparative assessment reveals that while England and the U.S. have moved toward greater free speech protections, India’s legal framework remains restrictive, reflecting unresolved anxieties about national unity and democratic dissent. The paper concludes by questioning the necessity of sedition laws in liberal democracies and calls for legislative and judicial reforms to align India’s approach with global standards of free expression.

Keywords: Sedition, free speech, liberal democracy, comparative law, India, United States, England, Section 124A, Brandenburg test, dissent.

Article Info: Received: 15 May 2025; Received in revised form: 07 Jun 2025; Accepted: 11 Jun 2025; Available online: 16 Jun 2025

DOI: 10.22161/ijels.103.84