Why is 124A so important for a belligerent and repressive state? The answer is because it is the only provision in law that allows policing and prosecution of legitimate free speech. The State is not particularly bothered about the part of sedition that requires a violent overt act. This is because with passage of time, since 1962 when Kedarnath was delivered, repressive criminal statutes have been enacted, which comprehensively cover the whole field of terrorist and unlawful activities, and the sedition section is no longer required to be used in situations of violence against the State. These statutes include the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which defines unlawful activity as “causing disaffection against the government”, the Public Safety Act, 1978, which create the crimes relating to “security of the state and maintenance of public order”, and the National Security Act, 1978, which was enacted to prevent “acts prejudicial to the defence of India”. The IPC itself creates “offences against tranquility”, including “rioting” as well as “promoting hatred”. Thus, 124A is, apart from vagueness, unconstitutional because it is obsolete and unnecessary. In the Cricket Association case, the Supreme Court laid down that an unnecessary provision must be struck down.