• The United Kingdom abolished sedition laws ten years back citing that the country did not want to be quoted as an example of using such draconian laws. Given the fact that the Section itself was introduced by the British to use as a tool to oppress the Indians, how far is it justified to retain Section 124A in the IPC?
  • Should sedition be not redefined in a country like India, the largest democracy of the world, considering that right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy ensured as a Fundamental Right by our Constitution?
  • Will it be worthwhile to think of an option of renaming the Section with a suitable substitute for the term sedition and prescribe punishment accordingly?
  • What is the extent to which the citizens of our country may enjoy the right to offend?
  • At what point would the right to offend qualify as hate speech?
  • How to strike a balance between Section 124A and right to freedom of speech and expression?
  • In view of the fact that there are several statutes which take care of various acts which were earlier considered seditious, how far would keeping section 124A in the IPC serve any purpose?
  • Given the fact that all the existing statutes cover the various offences against the individual and/or the offences against society, will reducing the rigour of Section 124A or repealing it be detrimental or beneficial to the nation?
  • In a country where contempt of court invites penal action, should contempt against the government established by law not invite punishment?
  • What could be the possible safeguards to ensure that Section 124A is not misused?”