INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY AND REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH: A STUDY OF SEDITION LAWS AND DIGITAL REGULATION IN INDIA

Abstract

The digital age has transformed the role of online intermediaries from passive conduits of information into hugely influential arbiters of public discourse, exercising substantial power through the rules they set for interaction between content publishers and a global audience. This paper examines that power specifically through the especially sensitive lens of sedition law enforcement and hate speech moderation, situating India's colonial-origin sedition provision, now Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, within the broader constitutional framework of Article 19(1)(a) and the intermediary liability regime the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its associated rules establish. It traces the historical evolution of sedition law from its English origins through Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code to Section 152 BNS, and examines the constitutional challenge to Section 152 the Supreme Court has since agreed to hear, tagged with the long-pending challenge to Section 124A itself. Drawing on landmark decisions including Kedar Nath Singh, Shreya Singhal and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, and on comparative frameworks in the United States and the European Union, the paper argues that intermediary regulation in India risks producing a chilling effect through vague statutory language and executive-driven takedown mechanisms operating with insufficient judicial oversight, and it proposes reform capable of preserving legitimate state interest in security and public order without collapsing the constitutional distinction between advocacy and incitement that Article 19 was designed to protect.