 On May 5, 2022, the Supreme Court of India will be hearing multiple pleas challenging the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, or Sedition Law. The pleas which were filed by the Editors Guild of India and Major General Retired, S.G. Bombatkaray, among others, argues that the sedition law causes a chilling effect on speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, which is a fundamental right. This contentious and highly misused law, which has been in place since British rule, has been used by subsequent governments to silence critics and criminalise dissent. Some recent notable examples of this are against environmental activist Disha Ravi for sharing a toolkit for a global online campaign supporting a farmers protest. Against journalist Siddhi Ki Kappan for proceeding towards Hatras where a 19-year-old Dalit woman was gang-raped and his alleged links with PFI, the popular front of India. Against Umar Khale, Kanhaiya Kumar and several others for leading a procession and supporting seditious slogans raised on the JNU campus in 2016 during an event to mark the hanging of Absel Guru. Let us take a look at what the sedition law or Section 124A of IPC really is. How is sedition defined? Drafted by British historian, politician Thomas Burbington Macaulay, in 1837, the sedition charge, as we understand it today, was included in Section 124A of the IPC in 1870. It is a non-bailable offence which makes any speech or expression that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India, a criminal offence punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. At the time of its inception, this law was put into place by the British to suppress dissent and silence freedom fighters like Gandhi and Tillak who spoke against the policies of the colonial government. It is no surprise that a century and a half later the law continues to be used or rather misused in the same way. As per the 2020 National Crime Records Bureau or NCRB report, the number of sedition cases in the country has been rapidly growing while at the same time the number of convictions in such cases remains extremely low. In 2018, 70 sedition cases were filed not a single person was convicted. In 2019, subsequently 93 cases were filed while only two were convicted and in 2020, 73 cases were filed and not even one was convicted. This drastic mismatch between number of cases and rate of conviction clearly indicates that the state has been misusing this provision to file baseless and frivolous cases. Differing views on the need for this law Over the years, many differing and often contradictory views have been expressed about the validity of this law and whether it should still be included in the IPC. A 2018 report by Law Commission of India states that in a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection towards their country in their own way. For this reason, they believe that while the sedition law should remain in the IPC, it should be invoked only in cases where the intention behind any act is to disrupt public order or to overthrow the government with violence and illegal means. In parliament too, different MPs have raised the issue of this law over the years. While some such as CPI MP D. Raja have called for a mission of the bill, others have asked to alter its terms and usability. What is the Supreme Court's stance on it? In 2021 July, following appeals by several parties, Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana observed, sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Is this law necessary after 75 years of independence? He added, if you look at the history of use of this section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. That is misuse of power by executive agencies. At a time when courts like all other national institutions are under immense pressures to conform to the ideas of the ruling party, a statement like this from the CGI surely offers a glimmer of hope. But will this contentious law finally be done away with? With the final hearing on the matter ready to take place tomorrow, which is May 5, that remains to be seen.