​Coerced consent, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• In May 2022, the Supreme Court directed governments to refrain from registering new FIRs under Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC, during S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India.
• Section 124A was effectively replaced by Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2024, increasing the minimum sentence to seven years.
• In February 2026, the Chief Justice of India noted that the Centre's 2022 promise to review Section 124A was not binding on Parliament.
• On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court stated that courts may proceed on Section 124A cases if the accused consents, raising concerns about coerced consent.

Zero FIR.jpg

Detailed Insights:

• The 2022 stay on Section 124A aimed to pause its use pending a constitutional challenge, but the accused's consent to trial may be influenced by potential prolonged delays if they refuse.
• S.G. Vombatkere case intended bail as a remedy for frozen trials, but the May 2026 clarification contrasts with the principle of 'bail is the rule' reinforced in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi.
• The 2022 stay sought to annul the chilling effect of sedition charges on free speech; however, the current situation may lead to unequal access to liberty based on the capacity to litigate.
• The state might have a perverse incentive to prolong uncertainty in cases involving constitutionally contested offenses if accused persons remain incarcerated.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Sedition: Conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
• Coerced Consent: Agreement obtained through force, threat, or undue influence.
• Presumption of Bail: The principle that an accused person is entitled to release on bail unless there are sufficient reasons to detain them.