The fundamental scheme of the Indian Constitution furthers absolute antagonism against the sedition provision that has its underpinnings in the archaic principles of the colonial era. Commentators on Indian law and politics have raised concerns that the country’s sedition law runs counter to India’s peculiar libertarian constitutional framework. The trepidation of the accused is intensified by ambiguous, vague and unclear wording of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. This article examines the judicial promotion of free speech in sedition cases as law under the aegis of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. By investigating its ancestry, the author proposes to shed light on the circumstances behind the conception and establishment of the Sedition Act in colonial India. The article further intends to comparatively analyse and examine the sedition statutes of India and other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States of America, etc., with a comprehensive emphasis on the philosophy and rulings of the respective Supreme Courts. The article concludes by proposing that India’s arbitrary sedition statute should be repealed for being redundant and in derogation with the country’s professed legal compass, the “Rule of Law”.

The Hong Kong statute criminalizing disrespect of the Chinese national anthem, passed in 2020, is one of many recent moves to suppress political dissent in the former British colony. The law restricts freedom of political expression, but its constitutionality is practically assured courtesy of earlier decisions upholding laws against flag desecration. This article draws on sociological and political literature to argue that symbolic nationalism, particularly when given the force of law, is a tool of the authoritarian state. Against this backdrop, it critically and comparatively analyses Hong Kong judicial decisions upholding the suppression of symbolic dissent, assessing their doctrinal coherence, normative defensibility, and consequences. It concludes with observations on the efficacy of attempts to enforce patriotic orthodoxy and on how deference to authoritarianism affects the rule of law.

We report a case of a male asylum seeker, protesting politically, who stitched his lips together, presenting to a psychiatric service for assessment. We review the literature in this area. Funding of psychiatric services to meet the complex needs of immigrants should be an integral part of service development.