Words as weapons: Where does free speech end and sedition begin?

On April 22, the picturesque town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a bloodbath. Twenty-six tourists, including a Nepalese national, were mercilessly gunned down by terrorists affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

Since then, much has changed between India and its rogue neighbour, Pakistan. What hasn’t changed is the profound sense of unity among the people of India—bound by grief, rage, and a collective desire for justice. The attack is being called the deadliest the country has endured since Pulwama in 2019.

The ripple effects were felt not just across India, but around the world. Protests erupted globally, with thousands taking to the streets. World leaders, too, condemned the cowardly attack in unison, standing firmly with India in solidarity.

In the immediate aftermath, India launched Operation Sindoor, executing precision strikes on key terror hubs in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Pakistan, eliminating over 100 terrorists. Meanwhile, a different kind of storm brewed at home—this one on social media.

In the week following the massacre, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, while campaigning for the Panchayat polls, echoed New Delhi’s hardline stance. He warned that individuals who sympathise with Pakistan or voice pro-Pakistan sympathies on social media, would be booked under the National Security Act (NSA).

And he made good on that warning. Till date in Assam alone, about 61 individuals have been arrested for their alleged inflammatory remarks on social media—beginning with AIUDF legislator Aminul Islam, detained just 24 hours after the attack.

Islam’s comments, which insinuated that the Pahalgam massacre and similar incidents in Kashmir were part of a “government conspiracy”, sparked outrage and led to his arrest under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

In the days that followed, the list of the accused grew—professors, folk singers, students, influencers, and more. While most were targeted for allegedly espousing pro-Pakistan views online, a few were detained for criticising the government—accusing it of a security lapse that enabled the attack.

While a large section of the public supports Operation Sindoor, a crucial question has begun to surface - Where does one draw the line between national security and the right to dissent? The answer isn’t simple—and certainly not immediate. But it does demands a closer look.

According to the data of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) from 2022, the highest number of sedition cases was filed in Assam between 2014 and 2021. Notably, of the 475 cases registered across the country between 2014 and 2021, Assam accounted for 14.52% with its 69 cases.

Of the 69 sedition cases filed in Assam during the period, three were filed in 2021, 12 in 2020, 17 in 2019 and also in 2018, 19 in 2017 and one in 2014. No sedition case was lodged in 2015 and 2016. This begs the question - What constitutes sedition?

Hard to define seditious speech

Justice (Retd.) Biplab Kumar Sharma, former Judge of Gauhati High Court said that it is difficult to draw the line between free speech and seditious speech. “Sedition charges are there when one says something against the country in the name of free speech. We will have to draw a line and we must not go beyond it,” Sharma said.

He added that while critical analyses or debates may not constitute sedition, statements defending an enemy country "have a high chance of being seditious".

“For instance, one may critically or analytically debate on the suspension of Indus Waters Treaty and conclude that the general people of Pakistan should not be made to suffer in the light of the tensions with the enemy country. These are critical views of people that may not constitute sedition. However, statements defending Pakistan or condemning India’s attack on Pakistan have a high possibility of being seditious,” Sharma said.

Advocate at the Gauhati High Court, Mousumi Chatterjee, echoed similar thoughts. Chatterjee said that there has to be a direct nexus between the impugned act and the likelihood of causing disharmony or hatred.

“Constructive criticism involves expressing opinions or dissenting views against the government or its policies without inciting violence or lawlessness. However, speech that incites violence, disorder, rebellion against the government or public disturbance can be considered seditious. It poses an immediate threat to national security or public order,” Chatterjee said.

City resident Debolina Sarma said the arrests made in Assam were aimed at individuals expressing support for terrorist organisations in Pakistan, not for sympathising with its civilian population.

“India’s war is against cross-border terrorism, which Pakistan has been nurturing for decades. This is not a war against the people of Pakistan. Our retaliation has been targeted specifically at terror bases and camps,” Sarma said. “From what I’ve seen, the government has only arrested those who expressed sympathies for Pakistan-based terrorist groups—not for showing compassion toward ordinary citizens.”

Free speech or national threat?

Debates are raging across social media over whether the recent arrests for expressing views about Pakistan amount to a clampdown on freedom of speech and expression. Justice Sharma believes that the key to understanding these arrests lies in the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

“While the term ‘reasonable restrictions’ is open to interpretation, we must remember that, as citizens of India, our speech should be responsible and meaningful,” Sharma said. “Free speech cannot extend to statements that compromise national security, provoke unrest, or hurt the sentiments of fellow citizens.”

Adding a legal perspective, Advocate Chatterjee said the arrests in Assam for allegedly pro-Pakistani posts highlight the need for careful judicial scrutiny. “Each case must be examined in its own context. The courts must strike a balance between national security and the fundamental right to free expression. What matters most is the intent behind the speech—whether it is likely to incite disharmony or pose a threat to public order. Security, public order, and incitement to offences are valid grounds for restricting speech under the Constitution,” he said.

City resident Debolina Sarma echoed these concerns, emphasising the evolving nature of modern warfare. “The face of war is changing. Today, it includes cyber warfare—attacks, surveillance, and manipulation of our social media feeds to sow division,” she said.

“We are living in sensitive times, and as tensions between nations escalate, it’s not unreasonable for the government to monitor digital spaces. Negative or provocative content on social media can dent public morale and stir internal unrest. Our social media has effectively become a battlefield, one that can be used to incite violence or fragment society. That’s alarming,” she adds.

Even during previous wars, India imposed restrictions in the interest of national security—long before the rise of social media.

Today, with digital platforms amplifying every voice, the stakes are even higher. In volatile times, restraint online isn’t repression; it’s responsibility.

Free speech remains a pillar of democracy but when national security is under threat, there cannot be any compromise and "Nation first" should be the motto of every citizen.