"CRITICAL iANALYSIS iOF iSEDITION iLAW

iAND iFREE iSPEECH iIN iINDIA"

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO GURU GOBIND SINGH
INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, DELHI IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELORS OF LAWS

By- ANANT SHARMA

01451103817
Under the Supervision of
ii Ms. Raveena iSarao
( iProfessor, iDME)

SCHOOL OF LAW
DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION
BATCH 2017-2022

1
 DECLARATION

I, …………….Student of BA LLB / BBA LLB, hereby declare

that the dissertation titled “………………………” which is submitted
by me to DME Law School, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the award of degree of B.A.LL.B / B.B.A.LL.B by the Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi is my original work. It is further
declared that all the sources of information used in the dissertation have
been duly acknowledged. I understand that the dissertation may be
electronically checked for plagiarism by the use of plagiarism detection
software to assess the originality of the submitted work.

Place:…………
Date:………….

.
…………………

. (Signature)

. ANANT SHARMA

2
 CERTIFICATE

On the basis of declaration submitted by…………….., student of

BALLB / BBALLB, I hereby certify that the dissertation titled
“……………………..……” submitted to the DME Law School, in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
B.A.LL.B./ B.B.A.LL.B by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Delhi has been carried out by him/her under my guidance
and supervision.

………..………
(Signature)

Prof./Dr./Mr./Ms……………..
(Designation) (Supervisor)

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. iIntroduction 1-12
1.1.General iIntroduction
1.2. Objective
1.3. Statement iOf iProblem
1.4. Research iMethodology
1.5. Hypothesis
1.6. Literature iReview
1.7. Chapterisation
2. iHistory iof iSedition iLaw 12-21
2.1.Sedition iBefore iIndependence
2.2.Conflict iin iInterpretation iof iSection i124-A ibetween iFederal iCourt iand iPrivy iCouncil
2.3. Colonial iTrials
2.4. Sedition iAfter iIndependence
3. iFreedom iof iSpeech iand iSedition iin iIndia 22-33
3.1. Article i19(1) i(a) iof ithe iConstitution
3.2. Article i19(2) iof ithe iConstitution
3.3. Expression inot iamounting ito iSedition
3.4. Constitutional iValidity iof isection i124A
3.5. Sedition iand iMedia
4. iPrevalent iProvision iof iSedition iLaws iin iIndia 34-40
4.1. Indian iPenal iCode, i1860
4.2. Criminal iProcedure iCode, i1973
4.3. Constitutionality iof iSection i95 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode
4.4. Prevention iof iSeditious iMeetings iAct, i1911
4.5. Unlawful iActivities i(Prevention) iAct, i1967
4.6. Insult ito iIndian iNational iFlag, iConstitution iof iIndia iand iNational iAnthem
5. iJudicial iPronouncements 41-56
5.1. Cases ibefore iIndependence

4
5.2. Cases iafter iIndependence
6. iIndian iSedition iLaw iin icomparison iwith iother icountrie0s 57-63
6.1. United iStates iof iAmerica
6.2. United iKingdom
6.4.Legal iProvisions iGoverning iInsulting iSpeech iin iInternational iLaw
6.4.1. iInternational iObligation

Recent iDevelopment iIn iSedition iLaw 64-70

7.1. Scope iof iSedition: iRecent iDecisions
7.2. Private iMember’s iBill iSuggesting iAmendment

8.Conclusion iAnd iSuggestions 71-75

Bibliography 76-80

5
 LIST iOF Iabbreviations

iAIR i iAll iIndia iReporter

iAll. i iAllahabad
iA.P. i iAndhra iPradesh
iArt. i iArticle
iBom. i iBombay
iBom.C.R. i iBombay iCases iReporter i(Criminal)
iBom.L.R. i iBombay iLaw iReports
iCal. i iCalcutta
iCBI i iCentral iBureau iOf iInvestigation
iCERD i iConvention ion ithe iElimination iof iRacial
iDiscrimination.
iC.J. i iChief iJustice
iCLA i iCentral iLaw iAgency
iCLR i iCalcutta iLaw iReporter
iCPI i iCommunist iParty iof iIndia
iCo. i iCompany.
iCol. i iColonel.
iCr. iP iC i iCriminal iProcedure iCode.
iCRI. iL.J i iCriminal iLaw iJournal iof iIndia.
iChh i iChhattisgarh
iCr. i iCriminal.
iCHRLR i iColumbia iHuman iRights iLaw iReview
iCSPSA i iChhattisgarh iSpecial iPublic iSecurity iAct.
iECHR i iEuropean iConvention ion iHuman iRights.
iEdn. i iEdition.
iEPW iEconomic iand iPolitical iWeekly
iFC i iFederal iCourt
iFCR i iFederal iCourt iReports.

6
 iFIR i iFirst iInformation iReport.
iHC i iHigh iCourt.
iHRA i iHuman iRights iAct.
iHRA i iHuman iRight iWatch.
iICCPR i iInternational iCovenant ion iCivil iand
iPolitical iRights.
iI.C.J. i iInternational iCourt iof iJustice.
iILR iIndian iLaw iReports
iITA i iInformation iTechnology iAct, i2000.
iIPC i iIndian iPenal icode
iIJL i iInternational iJournal iof iLaw
iIJPAM i iInternational iJournal iof iPure iand iApplied
iMathematics
iIJRCS i iInternational iJournal iof iResearch iCulture
iSociety
iIJLLJS i iInternational iJournal iof iLaw iand iLegal
iJurisprudence iStudies
iIJLDAI i iInternational iJournal iof iLegal
iDevelopments iAnd iAllied iIssues
iIJCAL i iIndian iJournal iof iConstitutional iand
iAdministrative iLaw
iJILI i iJournal iof ithe iIndian iLaw iInstitute
iJLAR i iJournal iof iLegal iAnalysis iand iResearch
iKer. i iKerala.
iKLT i iKerala iLaw iReporter.
iLJ i iLaw iJournal.
iLR i iLaw iReports.
iLt. i iLieutenant.
iLtd. i iLimited
iLSJ i iLiberal iStudies iJournal

7
 iNGO i iNon iGovernmental iOrigination.
iNUJS i iNational iUniversity iof iJuridical iSciences
iOrs. i iOthers.
iP.C. i iPrivy iCouncil.
iPIL i iPublic iInterest iLitigation.
iPM i iPrime iMinister.
iPOTA i iPrevention iof iTerrorism iAct, i2002.
iPUCL i iPeople's iUnion ifor iCivil iLiberties.
iPunj. i iPunjab.
iRCR i iRecent iCriminal iReports
iSC i iSupreme iCourt.
iSCC i iSupreme iCourt iCases.
iSCR i iSupreme iCourt iReports.
iTAA i The iAdvocates iAct.
iTADA iTerrorist iand iDisruptive iActivities
i(Prevention) iAct
iU.A.P.A. i Unlawful iActivity iPrevention iAct.
iUDHR iUniversal iDeclaration iof iHuman iRights
iUN i iUnited iNation.
iU.S. i iUnited iStates.
iU.K. i iUnited iKingdom.
WJJP iThe iWorld iJournal ion iJuristic iPolity

8
 LIST iOF iCASES

A
Asit iKumar iSen iGupta iv. iState iof iChhattisgarh, i2012 i(NOC) iCrLJ i384 i(Chh)
Alexander iM. iSullivan, i(1868) i11 iCox i44
Annie iBesant iv. iAdvocate iGeneral iof iMadras, i(1919) i21 iBOMLR i867
A.K. iGopalan iv. iState iof iMadras, iAIR i1950 iSC i27
Ahmad iAli iv. iThe iState, iAIR i1956 iAll. i598
Alavi iv. iState iof iKerala, i1982 iKLT i205
B
Balwant iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab, iAIR i1995 iSC i1785
Bilal iAhmad iKaloo iv. iState iof iAndhra iPradesh iAIR i1997 iSC i3483; i(1997) i7 iSCC i431
Brij iBhushan iv. iThe iState iof iDelhi, i1950 iSupp iSCR i245
Bennett iColeman i& iCo. iv iUnion iof iIndia, iAIR i1972 iSC i106
Barjinder iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab, i1993 iCrLJ i2040 i(Punj. iand iHaryana)
Brandenburg iv. iOhio, i395 iU.S. i444 i(1969)
Binayak iSen iv. iState iof iChhattisgarh, iCr. iA. iNo. i20 iof i2011 i& iCr. iA. iNo. i54 iof
i2011

D
Dr. iRammanohar iLohia iv. iThe iSuperintendent, iCentral iPrison, iAIR i1955 iAll.

E
Emperor iv. iRamchandra iNarayan, iILR i(1897) i22 iBom i152
Emperor iv. iBhaskar iBalwant iBhopatkar, i(1906) i8 iBom iLR i421
Emperor iv iMohandas iKaramchand iGandhi iand iShankarlal iGhelabhai iSankar,
Session iCase iNo. i45/1922 iAhmedabad

G
Gurjatinder iPal iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab, i(2009) i3 iRCR i(Cri) i224 77

9
H
Hemalatha iv. iGovernment iof iA.P, iAIR i1976 iAP i375
I
Indian iExpress iNewspaper iBombay i(P) iLtd. iv. iUnion iof iIndia, iAIR i1986 iSC i515
K
King iEmperor iv. iSadasiv iNarayan iBhalerao, i(1947) iLR i74 iIA i89
4, i16, i19, i51
Kedar iNath iSingh iv. iState iof iBihar, i1962 iAIR i955
2, i53, i59, i73
L
Lowell iv. iGriffin, i(1939) i303 iUS i444
24
M
Maneka iGandhi iv. iUnion iof iIndia, i1978 iAIR i597
29
Mohammed iKhalid iv. iChief iCommissioner iof iDelhi, iAIR i1968 iDelhi
N
Niharendu iDutt iMajumdar iv. iKing iEmperor, iAIR i1939 iCal i703
16,17,19,50
N.R. iNarayana iMurthy iv. iKannada iRakshana iVakeelara, iAIR i2007 iKant i174

New iYork iTimes iv. iSullivan, i376 iU.S. i254 i(1964)

P
Pratap i“Urdu iDaily iof iNew iDelhi”, i(1949) i2 iPunj i348 iP.J. iManuel iv. iState iof iKerala,
iILR i(2013) i1 iKer i793 iPrabhu iDutt iv iUnion iof iIndia, iAIR i1982 iSC i6
Q
Queen iEmpress iv. iJogendra iChunder iBose, i(1892) iILR i19 iCal i35 iQueen iEmpress iv.
iAmba iPrasad, i(1897) iILR i20 iAll i55 iQueen-Empress iv iBal iGangadhar iTilak, iILR
i(1897) i22 iBom i112

10
R
Raghubir iSingh iv. iState iof iBihar, iAIR i1987 iSC i149, i(1986) i4 iSCC i481
iRam iNandan iv. iState, iAIR i1959 iAll i101
Romesh iThappar iv. iState iof iMadras, iAIR i1950 iSC i124
R iv iChief iMetropolitan iStipendiary iMagistrate, iex iparte iChoudhury, i[1991] i1 iQB i429,
i[1991] i1 iAll iER i306

S
Sagolsem iIndramani iSingh iv. iThe iState, iAIR i1955 iManipur i15 i
Sanskar iMarathe iv. iState iof iMaharashtra i& iOrs, iCri.PIL i3-2015 i
Sabir iRaza iv iThe iState, iCri iApp iNo. i1434 iof i1955
Shreya iSinghal iv. iUnion iof iIndia, iAIR i2015 iSC i1523
Sakal ipaper iv. iUnion iof iIndia, iAIR i(1962) iSC i305

T
Tara iSingh iGopi iChand iv. iThe iState, i1951 iCriLJ i449
Tata iPress iLtd iv. iMahanagar iTelephone iNigam iLtd, i(1995) i5 iSCC

U
Union iof iIndia i& iOrs. iv. iThe iMotion iPicture iAssociation i& iOrs,ietc., iAIR 1999 SC
i2334

V
Vinod iDua ivs iUnion iof iIndia, iLL i2021 iSC i266

Y
Yates iv. iUnited iStates, i354 iU.S. i298 i(1957)

11
 INTRODUCTION

The term "seditionem" stems from the Latin term "civil disobedience, mutiny, or
insurrection."1 Sedition is a crime against the state, according to the Britannica definition.
Though sedition has the same consequence as treason, it is usually limited to the
allegation of organising or supporting resistance to the government in a less heinous
manner than treason (for example, through speech or writing).2
It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "language or action intended to encourage
others to oppose their government."3
Sedition, according to the Oxford dictionary, is "conduct or speech that incites people to
rebel against the authority of a state or ruler."4 Merriam-Webster defines as ‘incitement
of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
Clause 113 of the Draft Indian Penal Code (‘Draft Penal Code') proposed by Thomas
Babington Macaulay in 1837 was the first law pertaining to the offence of sedition in
colonial India. When the IPC was created in 1860, however, the section dealing with
sedition was removed. Many British lawmakers considered this as a potentially hazardous
trend, believing that the press needed to be reined in by legislation or else they would
continue to promote anti-colonial agendas.
However, the need for such a law was felt shortly after the Penal Code came into
operation and in 1870 on the suggestion of Sir James Stephen, the then law member of
the government of India, section 124-A was added in the code by the Indian penal code
(amendment) Act, 1870, which ran as follows:

124A. Exciting disaffection. – Whoever by words, be added, or with fine.

Explanation – Such a disapprobation of the measures of the government as is compatible
with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority, of the government, against
unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority, is not disaffection. Therefore, the
1
Sedition vs Sedation, available at: https://grammarist.com/usage/sedition-vs-sedation/
2
Encyclopaedia Britannica, available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sedition
3
Cambridge Dictionary, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sedition
4
English Oxford Living Dictionaries, available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sedition

12
 making of comments on the methods of the government, with the intension of exciting
only this species of disapprobation, is not an offence within this clause.5
The above provision was later replaced by the present section 124-A by the IPC
amendment act of 1898. Some minor changes of inconsequential character were made in
1937, 1948, 1950 and by the Part B states (law) Act, 1951 respectively.6
Libel (defamation) of the established authority of law, i.e. the government, is what
sedition is all about. In England, this is known as seditious libel. Sedition, in its most
basic form, refers to inciting people to rebel against the government..7 However, in legal
terminology, it refers to all acts and practises that aim to incite discontent or
dissatisfaction with the Constitution, the Government, or the Parliament in order to cause
a public disturbance or lead to a civil war, as well as all other efforts to promote public
discord and disorder.8
The Indian Penal Code has section 124-A which makes sedition a criminal offence with
the full section reading as under:
Section 124-A IPC—Sedition: “Whoever by words, which may extend to three years, to
which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1- The expression “dissatisfaction” includes disloyalty and all feelings of
enmity.
Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measure of the Government
with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under the section.
Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action
of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, do not
constitute an offence under the section”.

Ingredients.-This section requires two essentials:-

5
Merriam- Webster, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition
6
K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 220 (Universal Law Publishing, 5th edn.,2015).
7
Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
8
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (G.C. Merriam Co., USA, 1976).

13
 1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to
excite disaffection towards the government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done
(i) by words, either spoken or written or
(ii) by signs or
(iii) by visible representation.9

Explanation 1 to the section sets out the scope of disaffection and Explanations 2 and 3
states what is not considered seditious intentions indicated under English law.
Explanations 2 and 3 have a strictly defined and limited scope. They have no application
unless the article in question criticizes “the measures of Government” or “administrative
or other action of the Government” without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection.
The successful excitation of disaffection and the unsuccessful attempt to excite are treated
equally in this section. The crime consists of using any methods to incite hatred or
contempt for the government. 10
1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or
attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government of India. – A simple
reading of the section reveals that it applies only when the accused incites or attempts
to incite hatred or contempt for the government constituted by law in India, through
words, written or spoken, or visible signs or representations, etc. The effort of bringing
or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt to excite attempt to excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law in India by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, appears to be a necessary
ingredient to attract punishment under section 124A IPC. The crime does not entail
inciting or attempting to incite mutiny or revolt, or any other type of genuine
disruption, large or little. It makes no difference whether the publication of seditious
items produced any disruption or epidemic. If the accused meant to incite revolt or
disruption with the articles, his actions would almost certainly fall under this section,

9
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 271 (Lexis Nexis, Haryana, 35th edn., 2017).
10
Supra note 8 at 222

14
 as well as other provisions of the Penal Code. It is enough for him to be found guilty
under this clause if he attempted to incite feelings of hatred or contempt for the
government. The Federal Court of India, on the other hand, decided that the essence of
sedition is incitement to violence, and that mere harsh remarks are insufficient. The
Privy Council eventually overruled the Federal Court's decision.,as being opposed to
the view expressed in several cases.
It is not an essential ingredient of sedition that the act done should be an act which is
intended or likely to incite to public disorder. But this view of the law does no longer
seem to be correct, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath’s case,
wherein Sinha, C.J. observed “comments, however strongly worded expressing
disapprobation of actions of Government, without exciting those feelings which generate
the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other
words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting
in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to
ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those
acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity
or disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence”. It was
further held that viewed in the context of antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose
and the mischief it seeks to suppress the provisions of s. 124A

Hatred’ or ‘contempt’.- Hatred denotes malice, whereas contempt denotes a low

judgement. The state of thought in connection to the thing is hatred and disdain. Hatred
and contempt for the government can be instilled in the public by writing that ascribes to
the government dishonest,contemptuous, or malevolent motivations in the performance
of its duties, or by writing that falsely accuses the government of hostility or indifference
to the people's welfare.11
A speech that incites hatred and contempt for the government cannot be considered
harmless since it may enhance the level of hatred and contempt already present in the
minds of those who hear it. Furthermore, it is entirely conceivable to attempt, through the

11
Pratap “Urdu Daily of New Delhi”, (1949) 2 Punj 348

15
abuse of government officials, to incite hatred or contempt for the Indian government
created by law. 12
Disaffection: Explanation 1 to section 124A, IPC does not define the word ‘disaffection’,
but simply states that disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
The word disaffection can be defined as the opposite of affection, and it is often used to
represent the same feelings as hatred or dislike. Because it contains disloyalty, it may
cover something that is a little different from the phrase hatred. To encourage individuals
to rebel against the government is to try to arouse feelings of disloyalty in their hearts.
In the case of Q.E. v. Jogendra Chunder Bose,17(Bangobasi case) Sir Comer Patheram,
C.J, has very elaborately explained the meaning of the word disaffection in the following
words:-
“Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred.
Disapprobation means simply disapproval. It is quite possible to disapprove of man’s
sentiments or action and yet to like him. The meaning of the two words is distinct If a
person uses either spoken or written words calculated to create in the minds of the
persons to whom they are addressed a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the
Government, or to subvert or resist that authority, if and when occasion should arise, and
if he does so with the intention of creating such disposition in his hearers or readers, he
will be guilty of the offence of attempting to excite disaffection within the meaning of the
section, tough no disturbance is brought about by his words or any feeling of disaffection,
in fact, produced by them”. .

The courts have interpreted the word, ‘disaffection’24 widely as stated below:-

1. Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred.

2. Hatred, animosity, dislike, antagonism, contempt, and any other form of ill-will
toward the government are all included. Disloyalty is a broad phrase that
encompasses all types of negative attitudes toward the government..

12
Jansakti’ of Sylhet (in re), AIR 1932 Cal 649.

16
 3. It denotes political alienation or discount, that is, a feeling of disloyalty toward the
government or existing power, which leads a person to resist and strive to overthrow
that government or power rather than obey it. It cannot be interpreted to signify a lack
of affection or love, or the opposite of affection or love, i.e. dislike or hatred.

4. It's a positive political affliction, not just a lack of or rejection of love or benevolence.
It is a positive feeling of aversion that is akin to disloyalty, a defiant insubordination
of authority, or when it is not defiant, secretly seeks to alienate the people, weaken
the bond of allegiance, and prepossesses the minds of the people with avowed or
secret animosity towards the government, a feeling that tends to bring the government
into hatred or contempt by imputing base or corrupt motives to the government18

5. It refers to disloyalty. Anyone who arouses or seeks to arouse feelings of hatred,

dislike, ill will, animosity, or hostility against the Indian government constituted by
law arouses or attempts to arouse feelings of disaffection. 13

6. Disaffection is a feeling, not the absence of one. It isn't due to a lack of affection. It is
not indifference, but a pleasant emotion that, while not always leading to action, has
the ability to affect behaviour in the same way that all of our feelings do. It isn't
always restricted to 'hostility feelings.' It's meant to depict an emotion that only the
ruling and the ruled can share. Personal feelings of attachment are not required in
such a relationship, but just the sensations that the subject's relationship to the
government inevitably entails. This relationship entails the acknowledgement of the
Government as a Government on the part of the ruled. Then ruler must be accepted as
a ruler, and disaffection, which is the opposite of the feeling, is the repudiation of that
spirit of acceptance of a particular Government as ruler. 14

13
Queen Empress v. Amba Prasad, (1897)ILR 20 All 55 (68) (FB)
14
Emperor v. Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906) 8 Bom LR 421,428

17
In other words, the expression ‘disaffection’ signifies political alienation or discontent. That is to
say, a feeling of disloyalty to the Government of existing power, which tends to a disposition not
to obey but to resist and attempt to subvert the Government or power. 15

2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written or (ii) by signs or
(iii) by visible representation—Not only the writer of the seditious articles but whoever uses in
any way words or printed matter for the purpose of exciting feelings of disaffection to the
Government is liable under the section, whether he is the actual author or not.22

‘Written’— Dissatisfaction can be sparked in a variety of ways. A poetry, an allegory, a drama,

or a philosophical or historical discussion can all be utilised to elicit discontent. While seditious
work stays unpublished in the hands of the author, he will not be held accountable. Some form of
publication is required. It is not necessary for the accused to be the author of the seditious
material for the charge of sedition to be established, and distribution or circulation of seditious
material may also be sufficient depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, and even
the act of courier is sometimes enough in a case of conspiracy, and it is also not necessary for a
person to be a participant in the conspiracy.

‘Visible representation’.—Sedition does not necessarily consist of written matter: it may be

evidenced by a wood- cut or engraving of any kind.

The Supreme Court observed in Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh that the manner
in which convictions for offences under Sections 153-A, 124-A, and 505(2) were recorded
revealed a highly casual approach by the trial court. Even the charges brought against the
appellant for these offences did not contain the basic elements of the offences under the three
sections, as previously stated. Convicting a person for major offences like sedition and
promoting hostility and hatred, for example, is counterproductive to the purpose.

It is expected that graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of the
citizen is not lightly interfered with.

15
Emperor v. Ram Chandra Narayan, ILR (1897) 22 Bom 152.

18
The Constitution allows for government criticism to the point that people become so fed up with
it that they demand a change of administration through the electoral process. The overthrow of
government through violence or non-constitutional means is prohibited by the Constitution. The
Constitution mandates that government govern for the people's benefit; but, it makes no mention
of a government's responsibility to govern intelligently and effectively. It states that every five
years, the people of India will assess the performance of the administration and decide whether
or not a change in the persons in charge is necessary.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work is to analyze the relevance of Sedition Law in India and how it affects
the right to free speech and expression. To know the constitutional validity of the sedition law.

To analyze the effect of sedition law in India, its misuse and comparative study of sedition law
with other countries. To analyze legal provisions governing insulting speech in International Law
and India’s International obligation regarding the Freedom of Expression.

To analyze the current position of sedition law and its ground of invalidation with reference to
several case laws.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Does the law of sedition is used as a tool to curb the free speech? How to strike a balance
between s.124A and the right to freedom of speech and expression?

What could be the possible safeguard to ensure that s.124A is not misused?

Do our free speech laws not allow us to be critical of the country or the government? At what
point we can say that the line has been crossed from an exercise of free speech to sedition?

Does the threat of violence have to be credible and immediate?

19
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has undertaken doctrinal research methodology. This research is descriptive and
analytical in nature.

The sources are statutes or enactment, report committees, legal history and judgment etc. The
doctrinal research sources are text books, periodicals, and commentaries. All case laws decided
by Supreme Court and high courts which are binding of lower courts are also part of doctrinal
research. Websites, articles and reports have also been referred.

HYPOTHESIS

Sedition is a devastating provision that is meant to assist in crushing all opposition to the ruling
dispensation. A balancing approach between right of speech and expression and the integrity of
the Indian constitution have to be created.

‘The law on sedition in India has been employed as a tool of harassment to curb free speech.’

There has been a spate of cases where the government or the police authorities are slapping the
charge of sedition even in cases where persons voice their criticism without having the intension
to create disorder or use violence. Words which directly provoke violence or which directly
threaten the maintenance of public order deserve censure is unquestionable, especially given
India’s constitutional structure. But that’s not what the offence of sedition seeks to achieve.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher has analyzed the concept from ‘K.D. Gaur and the concept includes the
introduction of the law of sedition, its historical origin, its meaning, types, ingredients,
constitutionality of sedition and the suggestions for amendment of section 124A.

The researcher has also analyzed the concept from ‘Ratanlal & Dhirajlal which includes the
concept of sedition, its constitutional validity, ingredients of sedition.

20
CHAPTERIZATION

Chapter 1- Introduction

Chapter 1 is the introductory part which gives an outlook on law of sedition. It discusses the
definition of Sedition and ingredients of sedition.

Chapter 2- History of sedition law

This chapter deals with the historical background of sedition. The law before Independence and
Post- Independence, the conflict in interpretation of section 124-A between Federal Court and

Privy Council. It also covers the colonial trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant and
Mahatma Gandhi.

Chapter 3-Freedom of speech and Sedition in India

Chapter 3 is related to the relation between section 124-A and Article 19. It talks about freedom
of speech and how the sedition curbs this right, the maintenance of public order as a limit on free
speech, expression not amounting to sedition, Safe guards to protect the freedom of speech and
expression. The chapter discusses the constitutional validity of section 124-A. The constitutional
aspect of legal control over media and the right to criticism. It also discusses the Role of
judiciary to strike a balance between s.124A and the right to freedom of speech and expression
and to ensure that the law of sedition is not misused.

Chapter 4- Seditious provisions in other laws

Chapter 4 discusses the prevalent provisions of sedition laws in India. The chapter discusses
section 124- A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, Section 5 of The Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911, Section 13 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967and The National Honour Act, 1791.

21
Chapter 5- Judicial pronouncements

Chapter 5 is related to the judicial pronouncements. The cases before independence are King
Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, Annie Besant v. Advocate General of Madras, Queen
Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor, Queen Empress
v. Jogendra Chander Bose, Sedition trial of Gandhiji. Cases after Independence are Ram Nandan
v. State, Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, Tara Singh
Gopi Chand v The State, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh.

Chapter 6- Indian sedition law in comparison with other countries

Chapter 6 is related to comparative position of law of sedition in other countries. The sedition
laws in US and UK are analyzed. The chapter also discusses sedition within the framework of
International law, Legal provisions governing insulting speech in International Law and India’s
International obligation regarding the Freedom of Expression.

Chapter 7- Current position and developments

Chapter 7 discusses the current position of the sedition law in India. It discusses the Private
member’s bill suggesting Amendment. Section 124A continues to be used irrespective of
whether the alleged seditious act or words constitute a tendency to cause public disorder or
incitement to violence. India is one of the few countries where we have an archaic sedition law.
United Kingdom repealed its sedition law in 2010, in its current form; there is a grey area which
lies between actual law and its implementation. In many cases, it has been randomly used. Thus
the law needs amendments to minimize those grey areas.

Chapter 8-Conclusion and suggestions

Conclusion and suggestion on the basis of the research.

22
 CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF SEDITION LAW

 Sedition before Independence

The Indian Penal Code was originally framed in 1837 by the First Law Commission, chaired by
Thomas Babington Macaulay. Macaulay‘s Draft Penal Code 1837 consisted of section 113 that
corresponded to section 124A IPC. The punishment proposed was life imprisonment. Sir John
Romilly, Chairman of Second Pre-Independence Law Commission commented upon the
quantum of the punishment proposed for sedition, on the ground that in England the maximum
punishment had been three years and he suggested that in India it should not be more than five
years.38 However, this section was not included in the IPC when it was enacted in 1860. This
was surprising for many. Mr. James Stephens when asked about this omission referred to the
letter written by Sir Barnes Peacock to Mr. Maine, where he had remarked that:

“I have looked into my notes and I think the omission of a section in lieu of section 113 of the
original Penal Code must have been through mistake […] I feel however that it was an oversight
on the part of the committee not to substitute for section 113. 16

Mr. James Stephen thereafter set out to rectify this omission. Consequently, sedition was
included as an offence under section 124A IPC through special Act XVII of 1870. 17

British also introduced the term “Sedition” in the Indian Penal Code 1870 to outlaw speech that
attempted to “excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India." 18

Section 124A IPC was amended in 1898 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1898 (Act
V of 1898) providing for punishment of transportation for life or any shorter term. While the
former section defined sedition as exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection to the
Government established by law, the amended section also made bringing or attempting to bring

16
Supra note 6.
17
Law commission of India, Consultation paper on ‘Sedition’ (August 2018).

18
Sougata Talukdar and Rakesh Mondal, “Law of Sedition: An Agent of Colonialism: A Critique” 3 IJL 21-26
(2017).

23
in hatred or contempt towards the Government established by law, punishable. The provision
was amended by Act No.26 of 1955, substituting the punishment as ‘imprisonment for life and/or
with fine or imprisonment for 3 years and / or with fine.’ The amending Act of 1898 added the
words “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt.” But even this amended formula
provided no additional aid in deciding the crucial question involved in the interpretation of the
section, viz., whether it penalizes the act of exciting such feelings itself or aims at the exciting of
these feelings only when the actual or likely consequence is incitement to public disorder or use
of violence. The entire range of Indian cases on the law of sedition has centered round this
controversy. 19

Two important factors may be noted in connection with the operation of law of sedition in
England, viz.

i. That the law of sedition has not been used since 1909.
ii. Jury is the sole Judge to determine 'seditious intention' according to circumstances. This
acts as a checkmate on the efforts of touchy rulers to push forward their annoyance
successfully.

According to some legal scholars said that the omission was the result of a mistake, another
explanation for not having the law of sedition in the Indian Penal Code was that the British
Government wanted to adopt more wide-ranging strategies against the press. Since it came into
operation in 1870, the law of sedition has continued to be used to restrain voices of protest,
dissent or criticism of the government. 20

The framework of this section was imported from various sources-the Treason Felony Act
(operating in Britain), the common law of seditious libel and the English law relating to seditious
words. The common law of seditious libel governed both actions and words that pertained to
citizens and the government, as well as between communities of persons.

Section 124A IPC was extensively used to curb political dissent in India. British rulers used the
sedition law to curb the Indian freedom movement and retain imperial power. The first reported
use of Sedition law was against Jogendra Chunder Bose, editor of “Bangobasi”, in 1891 for his

19
R. K. Misra, “Freedom of Speech and the Law of Sedition in India” 8 JILI 117-131 (1966)
20
Nivedita Saxena & Siddhartha Srivastava, “An Analysis of the Modern Offence of Sedition” 7 NUJS 120-147
(2014)

24
criticism of the “Age of Consent Bill”. He said that the bill was being forcefully imposed on
Indians.

It was opined that section 124A IPC penalized disaffection and not disapprobation. Disaffection
was defined as a feeling contrary to affection; like dislike or hatred and disapprobation as merely
disapproval. The following interpretation was ascribed to the term disaffection under section
124A IPC:

If a person uses either spoken or written words calculated to create in the minds of the persons to
whom they are addressed a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the Government, or to
subvert or resist that authority, if and when occasion should arise, and if he does so with the
intention of creating such a disposition in his hearers or readers, he will be guilty of the offence
of attempting to excite disaffection within the meaning of the section, though no disturbance is
brought about by his words or any feeling of disaffection, in fact, produced by them.

No verdict was announced as the jury did not reach a unanimous decision. Later the case was
withdrawn after Bose had tendered apology.

Conflict in Interpretation of section 124-A between Federal Court and Privy Council:

The discussion of Section 124A in the pre-independence context cannot be complete without
giving consideration to the opinions of the Federal Court (highest court in India at the time) in
conflict with those of the Privy Council (highest court of appeal for commonwealth countries at
the time). The definition of sedition was a bone of contention even in colonial India. In defining
21
sedition in the Niharendu Dutt Majumdar case, the Federal Court held that words, however
strong they might be, did not make a speech or any document seditious. They should in addition
have the power to incite disorder among the masses or must have the intention to do the same.
22
Conversely, the Privy Council, in the Sadashiv case overruled this decision and reiterated the
view articulated in Tilak’s trial. It stated that the incitement to violence was not a necessary
ingredient of sedition.

21
Niharendu Majumdar v. Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22 (26).

22
King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, 1947 L.R. 74 I.A. 89.

25
One view was expressed by Strachey, J. in Queen-Empress v Bal Gangadhar Tilak30 in which
he pointed out that “Section 124-A IPC is a statutory offence and differ in this respect from its
English count00erpart which is a common law misdemeanor elaborated by the decision of the
judges. He observed that “the amount or intensity of the disaffection is absolutely material. If a
man excites or attempts to excite feeling of disaffection great or small, he is guilty under this
section. The offence consists in exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings
towards the Government. It is not the exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any
sort of actual disturbance, great or small. Whether any disturbance or outbreak was caused by
these articles is absolutely immaterial. If the accused intended by the articles to excite rebellion
or disturbance, his act would doubtless fall within section 124-A and would probably fall within
other sections of the penal code. But even if he neither excited not intended to excite any
rebellion or outbreak of forcible resistance to the authority of the Government, still if he tried to
excite feelings of enmity to the Government that is sufficient to make him guilty under the
section.”

The observation of Strachey, J in Tilak’s case on the scope of Section 124-A were approved by
the Privy Council as having indicated the correct law on the question of sedition.

The other view was expressed by Sir Maurice Gowyer, C.J. in Niharendu Majumdar’s case. This
view marks a departure from the strict rule of construction inasmuch as it attempts to bring the
offence of sedition in line with the English Law on the question. Gwyer, C.J., speaking for the
Federal Court observed that “The first and most fundamental duty of every Government is the
preservation of order, since order is the condition precedent to all civilization and the advance of
human happiness.

This duty has no doubt been sometimes performed in such a way as to make the remedy worse
than the disease; but it does not cease to be matter of obligation because some on whom duty is
rests have performed it ill. It is to this aspect of the function of the Government that in our
opinion the offence of sedition stands related. It is the answer of the state to those who, for the
purpose of attacking or subverting it,...seek to disturb its tranquility, to create public disturbance
and to promote disorder, or who incite others to do so. Words, deeds or writing constitute
sedition, if they have this intention or this tendency; and it is easy to see why they may also

26
constitute sedition, if they seek, as the phrase is, to bring government into contempt. This is not
made an offence in order to minister to the wounded vanity of Government, but because where
Government and the law cease to be obeyed, because no respect is felt any longer for them, only
anarchy can follow. Public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public
disorder, is thus the gist of the offence. The acts of words complained of must either incite to
disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that is their intention or tendency.”

The liberal interpretation of provisions of section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code in Niharendu
Majumdar brought the Indian law of Sedition at par with its counterpart in English law. Thus
public disorder or reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder was held to be the gist
of the offence.57 But Privy Council in K.E. v. Sadashiv Naryan’s had nullified Niharendu
Majumdar’s case and approved the observation given by Strachey, J., in Tilak’s case regarding
the scope of Section 124-A as having the correct law on the question of sedition. It means that
sedition was construed to include any statement that was liable to cause ‘disaffection’, namely,
exciting or attempting to excite in others bad feelings towards the government. The amount or
intensity of the disaffection is absolutely immaterial. If a man excites or attempts to excite
feelings of disaffection great or small; (even though there was no element of incitement to
violence or rebellion) he is guilty of under this section.31

 Colonial Trials
In the case of Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the government claimed that some
of his speeches that addressed to Shivaji killing Afzal Khan had instigated the murder of
the Plague Commissioner Rand and another British officer, Lieutenant Ayherst. The two
officers were killed as they were returning from a supper gathering at Government
House, Pune, Tilak was convicted of the charge of sedition. In spite of, a spirited defense
from Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who was amongst the most prominent faces of the Bombay
Bar Association, the Judges convicted Tilak and sentenced him to a six years rigorous
detainment with transportation.

Another famous decision was Annie Besant v. Advocate General of Madras, The case
dealt with Section 4(1) of the Indian Press Act, 1910, that was framed similar to Section
124A. The relevant provision said that any press used for printing/publishing newspapers,

27
 books or other documents containing words, signs or other visible representations that
had a tendency to provoke hatred or contempt to His Majesty’s government...or any class
of subjects (either directly or indirectly, by way of inference, suggestion, metaphor, etc.)
would be liable to have its deposit forfeited. In this case an attack was leveled against the
English bureaucracy. The Privy Council followed the earlier interpretation of Justice
Strachey and confiscated the deposit of Annie Besant’s printing press.
Further in 1922, Mohandas Gandhi was also tried under Section 124A, along with
Shankerlal Banker. They were charged with the writing and publication of three articles
“Tampering with Loyalty”, “The Puzzle and its Solution” and “Shaking the Manes”,
which were published in the newspaper, Young India. According to Noorani, the trial
failed to deflect Gandhi from the course he had decided upon. It succeeded only in
23
highlighting his qualities – dignity and felicity of expression. Gandhi pled guilty and
demanded that the judge give him the maximum punishment possible.
A conflict arose when the Federal Court of India, the highest judicial body of the country
till the establishment of the Supreme Court, overturned the conviction of Majumdar in
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor. Charges of sedition had first been pressed
against Majumdar on account of him allegedly delivering violent and provocative
speeches in the Bengal legislative assembly highlighting the inefficiency of the State
Government to maintain law and order in the aftermath of the Dacca riots. Sir Maurice
Gwyer, Chief Justice of the Federal Court at the time, held that the mere presence of
violent words does not make a speech or publication seditious. Instead, he was of the
belief that in order to be brought under the ambit of sedition, “the acts or words
complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men
that that is their intention or tendency.”
Subsequently, the soundness of the decision given by the Federal Court in Niharendu
Majumdar came to be discussed in great detail in King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan
Bhalerao. This case, pertaining to the publication and distribution of leaflets containing
prejudicial reports, was heard before the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council opined that Niharendu Majumdar was decided on the basis of a wrongful
construction of section 124A.it asserted that the view proposing the imposition of the

23
ILR (1897) 22 Bom 112

28
 offence of sedition only on the basis of suggesting rebellion or forcible resistance to the
government was inadmissible.

 Sedition after Independence

After India attained independence in 1947, the offence of sedition continued to remain in
operation under s.124A of the IPC. Even though sedition was expressly excluded by the
Constituent Assembly as a ground for the limitation of the right to freedom of speech and
expression, this right was still being curbed under the guise of this provision of the IPC.
On three
significant occasions, the constitutionality of this provision was challenged in the courts.
These cases shaped the subsequent discourse in the law of sedition.
A proposal for an amendment to this provision was moved in the Constituent Assembly
to permit the imposition of limitations on this right on the grounds of “libel, slander,
defamation, offences against decency or morality or sedition or other matters which
undermine the security of the State.” However, in light of the biased nature of judicial
pronouncements pertaining to cases of sedition in India, along with a precipitous rise in
the abuse of sedition law to incarcerate nationalists, the final drafters of the Constitution
felt the need to exclude sedition from the exceptions to the right to freedom of speech and
expression. 24
KM Munshi said “a line must be drawn between criticism of Government which should
be welcome and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which
civilized life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State.” In 1951, India’s PM
Jawaharlal Nehru publicly voiced his dislike of Section 124A, saying, “that particular
section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for
practical and historical reasons.”
With the Commencement of Indian Constitution in 1950, Article 19(1) (a) provides to
every citizen a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. With this
development Sedition Law contained in Section 124-A comes with direct conflict with

24
Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi, 1950 Supp SCR 245

29
fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) as a result of the Privy Council decision in
Sadashiv Naryan‘s case.
Thus in the final draft of the Constitution it was seen that the restrictions to the right
under 19(1)
a. Did not contain sedition within them. Commenting on this omission many years later,
Justice Fazl Ali said- The framers of the Constitution must have therefore found
themselves face to face with the dilemma as to whether the word “sedition” should be
used in article 19(2) and if it was to be used in what sense it was to be used. On the
one hand, they must have had before their mind the very widely accepted view
supported by numerous authorities that sedition was essentially an offence against
public tranquility and was connected in some way or other with public disorder; and,
on the other hand, there was the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee that
sedition as defined in the Indian Penal Code did not necessarily imply any intention
or tendency to incite disorder. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that they
decided not to use the word “sedition” in clause (2) but used the more general words
which cover sedition and everything else which makes sedition such a serious
offence. That sedition does undermine the security of the State is a matter which
cannot admit of much doubt. That it undermines the security of the state usually
through the medium of public disorder is also a matter on which eminent Judges and
jurists are agreed. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that public disorder or disturbances
of public tranquility are not matters which undermine the security of the State.
b. In Ram Nandan’s case the constitutional validity of section 124A of the IPC was
challenged in an Allahabad High Court case that involved a challenge to a conviction
and punishment of three years imprisonment of one Ram Nandan, for an
inflammatory speech given in 1954. The court overturned Ram Nandan’s conviction
and declared section 124A to be unconstitutional.
c. However, this decision was overruled in 1962 by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath
Singh v. State of Bihar, which held that the sedition law was constitutional. The
Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the judgment distinguished between
“the Government established by law” and “persons for the time being engaged in
carrying on the administration”. The Court distinguished clearly between disloyalty to

30
 the Government and commenting upon the measures of the government without
inciting public disorder by acts of violence. “Government established by law is the
visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the
Government established by law is subverted. Hence the continued existence of the
Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State.
That is why ‘sedition’, as the offence in s. 124A has been characterized, comes under
Chapter VI relating to offences against the State. Hence any acts within the meaning
of s. 124A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that
Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be
within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government
established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by
the use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any written or
spoken words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government
by violent means, which are compendiously included in the term ‘revolution’, have
been made penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate
clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of
Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would
not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however strongly worded,
expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those
feelings, which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence,
would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is
not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of
Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to
secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is
to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply
excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”
d. Thus the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, but at the
same time curtailed its meaning and limited its application to acts involving intention
or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to
violence. It is important to note that the Supreme Court read down the offence of
sedition in effect removing speech which could be exciting disaffection against the

31
 government but which did not have the tendency to create a disturbance or disorder
from within the ambit of the provision. The judges observed that if the sedition law
were to be given a wider interpretation, it would not survive the test of
constitutionality.

32
 CHAPTER i3

FREEDOM iOF iSPEECH iAND iSEDITION iIN iINDIA

The irelationship iof isection i124-A iof ithe iIPC iand iArticle i19 iof ithe iConstitution iof
iIndia iis ia istrained irelationship. iThe iIndian iConstitution iguarantees ifreedom iof ispeech
iand iexpression, iwhich iimplies ithe iright ito iexpress itheir iown iconvictions iand iopinions
iwithout irestrictions iby iwords iof imouth, iwriting, iprinting, ipictures ior iany iother
imeans.37 iThe ifundamental irights icontained iin iArticle i19(1) iare ithose igreat iand ibasic
irights iwhich iare irecognized ias ithe inatural irights iinherent iin ievery icitizen. iThe ibasic
irequisite iof ivalidity iof ilaw iwith ireference ito iArticle i19 iis ithat iit ishould inot ibe
iarbitrary iand ithe irestrictions ior ilimitations iimposed ion ithe irights iunder iArticle i19(1)
i(a) imust icomply iwith ithe ireasonable irestrictions imentioned iin iArticle i19(2)10.
Giving ivoice ito ithe iimportance iof ithe ifreedom iof ispeech, iJohn iStuart iMill iadvocated
ifor ithe ifree iflow iof ithe iideas iand iexpressions iin ia isociety. iHe iargued ithat ifor ithe
istability iof ia isociety ione imust inot isuppress ithe ivoice iof ithe icitizens, ihow iso iever
icontrary iit imight ibe. To ireach a ipoint iof iconclusion iand ithat itoo ia iright iconclusion, iin
icertain icases, iopen ipublic idiscussions iand idebates iare iinevitable.iAccording ito iMill, ithis
icould ibe iachieved ithrough ithe iright ito ifreedom iof ispeech.iThe iright inot ionly imakes iit
ipossible ito ihighlight ithe ipopular iopinion iof ia isociety ibut ialso iprovides ia iplatform ito
ithe isuppressed iand iunheard ipeople iwho iwish ito ivoice iagainst iany icelebrated iculture.
Mill ifurther ipoints iout ithat ia igood igovernment iis ithe ione iwhere ithe i‘intelligence iof ithe
ipeople’ iis ipromoted.
Mahima iMakhijaand iand iAsha iSundaram, i“The iSedition iLaws iin iIndia iwith iSpecial
iReference ito iShreyaSinghal ivs.iUnion iof iIndia” i119 iIJPAM i111-126 (2018).
Freedom iof ispeech iand iexpression imeans ithe iright ito iexpress ione’s iown iconvictions
iand iopinions ifreely iby imeans iof imouth, iwriting, iprinting ipictures ior iany iother imode. iIt
ithus iincludes ithe iexpression iof ione’s iideas ithrough iany icommunicable imedium ior
25
ivisible irepresentation, isuch ias igesture, isigns iand ithe ilike. iThe iexpression iconnotes

25
iLowell iv. iGriffin, i(1939) i303 iUS i444

33
ialso ipublications iand ithus ithe ifreedom iof ipress iis iincluded iin ithis icategory. iFree
ipropagation iof iideas iis ithe inecessary iobjective iand ithis imay ibe idone ion ithe iplatform
ior ithrough ithe ipress.

In itheicase of iA.K. iGopalan iv.iState iof iMadras,40 ithe iSupreme iCourt iobserved: “man, ias
ia irational ibeing, idesires ito ido imany ithings, ibut iin icivil i―society ihis idesires ihave ito
ibe icontrolled, iregulated iand ireconciled iwith ithe iexercise iof isimilar idesires iby iother
iindividuals… iLiberty ihas, itherefore ito ibe ilimited iin iorder ito ibe ieffectively ipossessed.”

Article i19(1) i(a) iof ithe iConstitution

Protection iof icertain irights iregarding ifreedom iof ispeech ietc.-
(1) iAll icitizens ishall ihave ithe iright-
(a) ito ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression;
With ithe iCommencement iof iIndian iConstitution iin i1950, iArticle i19(1) i(a) iprovides ito
ievery icitizen ia ifundamental iright ito ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iWith ithis
idevelopment iSedition iLaw icontained iin iSection i124-A icomes iwith idirect iconflict iwith
ifundamental iright iunder iArticle i19 i(1) i(a) ias ia iresult iof ithe iPrivy iCouncil idecision iin
iSadashiv iNarayan‘s icase.
i
Article i19(2) iof ithe iConstitution
(2) iNothing iin isub iclause i(a) iof iclause i(1) ishall iaffect ithe ioperation iof iany iexisting
ilaw, ior iprevent ithe iState ifrom imaking iany ilaw, iin iso ifar ias isuch ilaw iimposes
ireasonable irestrictions ion ithe iexercise iof ithe iright iconferred iby ithe isaid isub iclause iin
ithe iinterests iof ithe isovereignty iand iintegrity iof iIndia, ithe isecurity iof ithe iState, ifriendly
irelations iwith iforeign iStates, ipublic iorder, idecency ior imorality ior iin irelation ito
icontempt iof icourt, idefamation ior iincitement ito ian ioffence.
There iwas ian ioblique ireference ito ithe ivalidity iof isection i124-A iin ithe iSupreme iCourt
idecision iin iRomesh iThapar iv. iThe iState iof iMadras. iAlthough ithe ivalidity iof isection
i124-A iwas inot iin iissue iin ithe iCase, iPatanjali iSastri iJ, ispeaking ifor ithe imajority iof ithe
iCourt, iobserved:

34
 Deletion\ofitheiwordi“sedition” fromitheidrafti Art. 13(2), shows ithat icriticism iof
iGovernment iexciting idisaffection ior ibad ifeelings itowards iit iis inot ito ibe iregardedias ia
ijustifying iground ifor irestricting ithe ifreedom iof iexpression iand iof ithe ipress, iunless iit iis
isuch ias ito iundermine ithe isecurity ior itend ito ioverthrow ithe istate.
As ia iresult iof ithe idecisions iof ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iRomesh iThapper iand iBrij
ibhushan iv. iThe iState iof iDelhi, iArticle i19(2) iwas iamended iin i195141 iwhereby i“public
iorder” iwas iincluded ias ione iof ithe iadditional igrounds ion iwhich ireasonable irestrictions
icould ibe iimposed ion ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression.
In ithe icase iof iSagolsem iIndramani iSingh iv. iThe iState26 , iit iwas iobserved iby ithe icourt
ithat ieven ithough i‘public iorder’ ihad ibeen iadded iin iclause i(2) iof iArt. i19, iit icould
ihardly ibe iexpected ithat imere icriticism iof ithe igovernment iwould ibe ipunishable i‘in ithe
iinterest iof ipublic iorder.’ iThe iincitement ito ia ibreach iof ievery ilaw idoes inot inecessarily
iresult iin ipublic idisorder iand ithe iconnection ibetween ithe iimpugned ilaw iand ithe ithreat
ito ipublic ipeace imust ibe iclear iand iproximate iand inot iremote ior iproblematic27.
iSpreading iof idisaffection iagainst ia iparty igovernment icannot ibe
said ito ibe ia iground ifor iinferring ithat ipublic iorder iwould ibe idisturbed iunless iit iresults
iin iincitement iof iviolence.

 Expression inot iamounting ito iSedition

The icourt ihas ibeen icategorical iin iexpressing ithat ievery icriticism idoes inot iamount ito
isedition iand ithe ireal iintent iof ithe ispeech imust ibe iconsidered ibefore iimputing iseditious
iintent ito ian iact. iIn ithe icase iof iBalwant iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab44, ithe iCourt irefused
ito ipenalise icasual iraising iof islogans ifew itimes iagainst ithe iState iby itwo ipersons
i(Khalistan iZindabad, iRaj iKarega iKhalsa, iand iHinduan iNun iPunjab iChon iKadh iKe
iChhadange, iHun iMauka iAya iHai iRaj iKayam iKaran iDa). iIt iwas ireasoned ithat iraising
iof isome ilonesome islogans, ia icouple iof itimes iby itwo iindividuals, iwithout ianything
imore, idid inot iconstitute iany ithreat ito ithe iGovernment iof iIndia ias iby ilaw iestablished

26
iThe iConstitution i(First iAmendment) iAct, i1951
27
i1955 iCri iLJ i184

35
inor icould ithe isame igive irise ito ifeelings iof ienmity ior ihatred iamong idifferent
icommunities ior ireligious ior iother igroups.
28
In iSanskar iMarathe iv. iState iof iMaharashtra, iThe icase iarose iout iof ithe iarrest iof
iAseem iTrivedi, ia ipolitical icartoonist iwho iwas iinvolved iwith ithe iIndia iagainst
iCorruption imovement. iTrivedi iwas iarrested iin i2012 iin iMumbai ifor isedition iand
iinsulting ithe iNational iEmblems iAct. iThe icourt iconsidered ithe iquestion iof ihow iit icould
iintervene ito iprevent ithe imisuse iof isection i124A.

It iwas iheld ithat ithe icartoons iwere iin ithe inature iof ipolitical isatire, iand ithere iwas ino
iallegation iof iincitement ito iviolence, ior itendency ior iintention ito icreate ipublic idisorder.
iThe iCourt iissued iguidelines ito iall ipolice ipersonnel iin ithe iform iof ipreconditions ifor
iprosecutions iunder isection i124A: iWords, isigns, ior irepresentations imust ibring ithe
igovernment iinto ihatred ior icontempt, ior imust icause, ior iattempt ito icause idisaffection,
ienmity ior idisloyalty ito ithe igovernment. iThe iwords, isigns ior irepresentation imust ialso
ibe ian iincitement ito iviolence ior imust ibe iintended ior itend ito icreate ipublic idisorder ior ia
ireasonable iapprehension iof ipublic idisorder. iWords, isigns ior irepresentations, ijust iby
ivirtue iof ibeing iagainst ipoliticians ior ipublic iofficials icannot ibe isaid ito ibe iagainst ithe
igovernment. iThey imust ishow ithe ipublic iofficial ias irepresentative iof ithe igovernment.
Disapproval ior icriticism iof ithe igovernment ito ibring iabout ia ichange iin igovernment
ithrough ilawful imeans idoes inot iamount ito isedition. iObscenity ior ivulgarity iby iitself iis
inot ia ifactor ito ibe itaken iinto iaccount iwhile ideciding iif ia iword, isign ior irepresentation
iviolates isection i124A. iIn iorder ito iprosecute iunder isection i124A, ithe igovernment ihas ito
iobtain ia ilegal iopinion iin iwriting from ithe ilaw iofficer iof ithe idistrict i(the ijudgment idoes
inot ispecify iwho ithis iis) iand iin ithe inext itwo iweeks, ia ilegal iopinion iin iwriting ifrom
ithe ipublic iprosecutor iof ithe istate.
29
In ithe icase iof iTara iSingh iGopi iChand iv iThe iState, iChief iJustice iEric iWeston
iexplained ithe iirrelevance iof i124A, iin ithe icontemporary ipolitical isetting.
India iis inow ia isovereign idemocratic istate. iGovernments imay igo iand ibe icaused ito igo
iwithout ithe ifoundations iof ithe istate ibeing iimpaired. iA ilaw iof isedition ithought

28
iCri.PIL i3-2015
29
iTara iSingh iGopi iChand iv iThe iState i1951 iCriLJ i449

36
inecessary iduring ia iperiod iof iforeign irule ihas ibecome iinappropriate iby ithe ivery inature
iof ithe ichange, iwhich ihas icome iabout. 30
The iflexibility iand iresilience iof ian iindependent idemocracy imeant ithat iit ishould inot ionly
iwithstand ibut ishould ithrive iupon ifervent icritique iand idisagreement, iwhich iis ithe ifruit
iof ia iplurality iof ivoices. iEric iWeston iCJ iconcluded ithat, i“the isection ithen imust ibe iheld
ivoid.” iSuch isentiment iis ireflective iof iK.M iMunshi.
As ia imatter iof ifact ithe iessence iof idemocracy iis icriticism iof iGovernment. iThe iparty
isystem iwhich inecessarily iinvolves ian iadvocacy iof ithe ireplacement iof ione iGovernment
iby ianother iis iits ionly ibulwark; ithe iadvocacy iof ia idifferent isystem iof iGovernment
ishould ibe iwelcome ibecause ithat igives ivitality ito ia idemocracy.
Eight iyears ilater, ithis iposition iwas iagain ifurthered iin itwo icases. iOne iwas ithat iof iSabir
iRaza, iwhereby icriticisms iof ithe iChief iMinister iof iUtter iPradesh iwas iheld inot ito
iamount ito isedition.48In iRam iNandan’s icase, ithe iHigh iCourt iof iAllahabad ioverturned
ithe iconviction iof iRam iNandan ifor ia ispeech ihe imade ito ia igroup iof ivillagers. iSection
i124A iwas iagain iheld ito ibe iunconstitutional. iJustice iGurtu iexplained ithat iit iwas
ipossible ifor ipeople iwho ilegitimately iand ipeaceably icriticize
the igovernment ito ibe icaught iin i“the imischief iof iSection i124A iof ithe iIndian iPenal
iCode.” iFor ithis ireason ihe isaid iit ishould ibe iinvalidated.
These iprogressive idecisions iwere ioverturned iby ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iKedar iNath iSingh
iv iState iof iBihar. iWhilst ithe icourt iupheld ithe iconstitutionality iof ithe ilaw iof isedition
ithey ireinterpreted iits imeaning, ias idiscussed iabove.

In ione isuch icase, iP.J. iManuel iv. iState iof iKerala, ithe iaccused iaffixed iposters ion ia
iboard iat ithe iKozhikode ipublic ilibrary iand iresearch icentre, iexhorting ipeople ito iboycott
ithe igeneral ielection ito ithe iLegislative iAssembly iof ithe istate. iThe iposter iproclaimed,
i“No ivote ifor ithe imasters iwho ihave ibecome iswollen iexploiting ithe ipeople, iirrespective
iof idifference iin iparties.” iConsequently, icriminal iproceedings iwere iinitiated iagainst ihim
iunder is.124A iof ithe iIPC ifor ithe ioffence iof isedition.

30
iSabir iRaza iv iThe iState, iCri iApp iNo. i1434 iof i1955, iD/ i- i11-2-1958 i(All) icited iin iRam iNandan iv.
iThe iState, iAIR i1959 iAll i101.

37
The iKerala iHigh iCourt iobserved ithat iit ineeds ito ibe iexamined iwhether ithe ipublication
ior ipreaching iof iprotest, ior ieven iquestioning ithe ifoundation ior iform iof igovernment
ishould ibe iimputed ias i“causing idisaffection itowards ithe igovernment” iin ia imodern
idemocracy. iThe icontent iof ithe ioffence iof isedition imust ibe idetermined iwith ireference ito
ithe iletter iand ispirit iof ithe iConstitution iand inot ito ithe istandards iapplied iduring icolonial
irule. iIn isupport iof iits iview, iit icited iauthority ito idemonstrate ithat ieven ithe ishouting iof
islogans ifor ithe iestablishment iof ia iclassless isociety iin iline iwith ithe itenets iof isocialism
iwould inot ibe ipunishable ias isedition. iFurther, iit inoted ithat is.196 iof ithe iCode iof
iCriminal iProcedure, i1973, i(‘CrPC’) imandates ithat ithe igovernment imust iexpressly
iauthorise iany icomplaint ifiled ifor ian ioffence iagainst ithe iState i(under iPart iVI iof ithe
iIPC) ibefore ithe iCourt ican itake icognisance iof isuch ian ioffence. iIt ithus iheld ithat ithe
iimpugned act idid inot iconstitute ithe iact iof isedition iand iquashed ithe icriminal iproceedings
iagainst ithe ipetitioner.
Thus, expression iof istrong icondemnation itowards ithe iState ior iState iinstitutions ican inever
iamount ito isedition ifor ithe isimple ireason ithat ino iinstitution ior isymbol ialone iembodies
ithe iwhole icountry iin ientirety. iIn imany icases ithe icritique iover ia ifailed ilaw iexpressed
ithrough ifor iinstance, ithe iburning iof iConstitution, ior iexpression iof idisappointment iwith
imembers iof iParliament ithrough ia ivisually idisparaging icartoon ior ian iimage iof
iParliament icannot iamount ito isedition ibecause ioften ithe iprotests imay ibe irouted iin ian
iidea iof iIndia iwhich ihas ibeen ifrustrated iby iits ielected irepresentatives, ior ia ilaw ithat ihas
idemeaned ior idisappointed icitizens iof iIndia.

 Constitutional iValidity iof isection i124A

Article i14, i19 iand i21 iof ithe iConstitution iform ithe i‘Golden iTriangle’. iThis iwas ilaid
idown iin ithe icase iof iManeka iGandhi iv. iUnion iof iIndia i50where ithe icourt ilaid
iemphasis ion ithe iimportance iof ithese ithree iarticles iin iinterpreting ithe ibasic irights iof
ipeople iof ithe icountry iand iensuring ithat ithey iact ias ia istrong ibarrier iagainst iarbitrary
iacts iof ithe istate. iThe iConstitution iguarantees iall iindividuals ithe iright ito ifreedom ito
ispeech iand iexpression iwhich iis iimbibed iunder ithe iprovision iof iArticle19 i(1) i(a). iThis
ifundamental iright ihas ibeen ideclared ito ibe ia ipart iof ithe ibasic istructure iof ithe
iconstitution iand iits iimportance iis iparamount. iBut ithis iright iis inot iabsolute iand ino igood

38
ilaw ican ibe iabsolute. iThere iexist ireasonable irestrictions iwhich ihave ibeen iplaced iupon
ithis iright ithrough ithe iprovision iof iArticle i19(2). iThe ireasonable irestrictions iin ithis
iarticle iare iin ifurtherance iof ithe iinterests iof isovereignty iand iintegrity iof ithe istate,
isecurity iof ithe istate iand ipublic iorder, idecency ior imorality. iThe ifirst iconstitutional
iamendment iin i1951 ibrought iin ithese ireasonable irestrictions iagainst ithe iabsolute iuse iof
ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iA icitizen ientails iwith ihim ithe iright ito ivoice ihis
iopinions iabout ithe igovernment iwhether ipositively ior inegatively. iIn icase iof inegative
iopinions, isuch iexpression iis ijustified iso ilong ias ihe idoesn’t iincite iviolence iamong ithe
ipeople iagainst ithe igovernment ior iacts iin ia imanner iintending ito icreate ipublic idisorder.
iTherefore, ithe icourt ihas ia iduty ito ibalance ithis iright ito ifreedom iof ispeech iand
iexpression iagainst ithe ipower iof ithe istate ito iimpose ireasonable irestrictions iin ithe
iinterest iof isecurity iof ithe istate iand idecency, imorality iand ipublic iorder. 31

Article i13 i(1) iof ithe iIndian iConstitution irenders ivoid iany ilaw iwhich iis iincompatible
with ithe iConstitution. iThe isedition ilaw, iif iin iconflict iwith iArt i19 iof ithe
iConstitutioniwould ibe iinvalid. iA inumber iof icases iin ithe i1950 iprobe ithe iquestion iof
iconstitutional compatibility. iThis iquestion iremained ieven iafter ithe iconstitutional
iamendment iin i1951, iwhich iadded ipublic iorder ito ithe ilist iof ifactors ithat icould
ilegitimately irestrict ifreedom iof ispeech.
In ithe icase iof iTara iSingh iGopi iChand iv iThe iState, iEric iWeston, iC.J. iexplained ithe
iirrelevance iof i124A, iin ithe icontemporary ipolitical isetting.
India iis inow ia isovereign idemocratic istate. iGovernments imay igo iand ibe icaused ito igo
iwithout ithe ifoundations iof ithe istate ibeing iimpaired. iA ilaw iof isedition ithought
inecessary iduring ia iperiod iof iforeign irule ihas ibecome iinappropriate iby ithe ivery inature
iof ithe ichange, iwhich ihas icome iabout.
In iRam iNandan’s icase ithe iconstitutional ivalidity iof isection i124A iof ithe iIPC iwas
ichallenged iin ian iAllahabad iHigh iCourt ithat iinvolved ia ichallenge ito ia iconviction iand
ipunishment iof ithree iyears iimprisonment iof ione iRam iNandan, ifor ian iinflammatory
ispeech igiven iin i1954. iThe icourt ioverturned iRam iNandan’s iconviction iand ideclared

31
iDiksha iArora iand iM. iAyush, i“The iUse iof iSedition iLaw ias ian iOppressive iTool” iWJJP i1-9 i(2017)

39
isection i124A ito ibe iunconstitutional. iBut iin iKedar iNath iv iState iof iBihar, iThe iSupreme
iCourt ioverruled iRam iNandan’s iCase iand iheld ithat iSedition ilaws iare iconstitutional. iThe
iCourt, iwhile iupholding ithe iconstitutionality iof ithe ijudgement idistinguished ibetween i“the
iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw” iand i“persons ifor ithe itime ibeing iengaged iin icarrying
ion ithe iadministration. iThe iSupreme iCourt iclarified ithat ithe icrime iof isedition iwas ia
icrime iagainst ithe iState iand iwas iintended ito iprotect ithe ivery iexistence iof ithe iState.
iThe ipurpose iof ithe icrime iof isedition iwas ito iprevent ithe iGovernment iestablished iby
ilaw ifrom ibeing isubverted ibecause i“the icontinued iexistence iof ithe iGovernment
iestablished iby ilaw iis ian iessential icondition iof ithe istability iof ithe iState” 32
The iSupreme iCourt iclarified ithat ia i“citizen ihas ia iright ito isay ior iwrite iwhatever ihe
ilikes iabout ithe iGovernment, ior iits imeasures, iby iway iof icriticism ior icomment, iso ilong
ias ihe idoes inot iincite people ito iviolence iagainst ithe iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw ior
iwith ithe iintention iof icreating ipublic idisorder.” 33

It ishould ialso ibe inoted ithat iin i1951 ithere iwas ian iamendment imade iin iArticle i19(2)
iwhich iincluded ithe iexpression i“in ithe iinterest iof” iand i“public iorder”. iThis iamendment
iincluded ithe ilegislative irestriction ion ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iIn iKedar iNath
iv. iState iof iBihar ithe iCourt iwas iof ithe iview ithat, ithe iexpression i“in ithe iinterest iof
ipublic iorder” ihas ia iwider iconnotation, iand inot ionly iincludes iacts iwhich iare ilikely ito
idisturb ipublic iorder ibut, ican ialso ibe iinterpreted ito iinclude iSection i124 i– iA. iIt iwas
ifurther iheld ithat iany iact iwhich iis ienacted iin ithe iinterest iof ipublic iorder ican ibe isaved
ifrom iconstitutional iinvalidity. iThe iCourt ialso iheld ithat ithe iright iguaranteed iunder
iArticle i19 i(1) i(a) iis isubject ito ithe irestriction iunder i19 i(2) iwhich icomprises iof i– iFirst,
isecurity iof ithe istate. iSecond, ifriendly irelations iwith iforeign istates. iThird, ipublic iorder.
iFourth, idecency ior imorality. iArticle i124 i– iA iof ithe iIPC iis icovered iunder isecurity iof
ithe istate iand ipublic iorder isince, ithe isection ipenalizes iany ispoken ior iwritten iwords ior
ivisible irepresentation iwhich, ihave ithe ieffect iof ibringing ior iwhich iattempt ito ibring iin

32
Sedition iLaws iand ithe iDeath iof iFree iSpeech iin iIndia” iCentre ifor ithe iStudy iof iSocial iExclusion iand
iInclusivePolicy, iNational iLaw iSchool iof iIndia iUniversity, iBangalore i& iAlternative iLaw iForum,
iBangalore, iFeb. i2011 iavailable iat i:https://www.nls.ac.in/resources/csseip/Files/SeditionLaws_cover_Final.pdf
33
iDr. iAkashdeep iSingh, i“Law iof iSedition iand iConstitutional iRights iin iIndia: iA iCritique” i1 iIJRCS i56-64
i(2017)

40
ihatred ior icontempt ior iexcite ior iattempt ito iexcite idisaffection itowards i“the iGovernment
iestablished iby ilaw” 34

 Sedition iand iMedia

Media iis iconsidered ito ibe ithe ifourth ipillar iof iDemocracy, ia ivital ifunctionary ifor
iinformed icitizenry. iMedia iacts ias ian iinterface ibetween ithe icommon iman iand ithe
iGovernment. iIt iis ia ivery ipowerful itool iwith ithe iability ito imake iand ibreak ithe iopinion
iof ipeople.
35
In ia i2015 ijudgment, iin iShreya iSinghal iv. iUnion iof iIndia, the iSupreme iCourt istated
ithat ione ihad ito idifferentiate ibetween i“advocacy” iand i“incitement”, iand ithat ionly
i“incitement” iwas ipunishable. iParagraph i87 iof ithe ijudgment ipenned iby iRohinton
iNariman iJ. iputs iout ithe ired iflag ito ithe idangers iof iover iexpansive iterms icurbing ifree
ispeech iand ithought. iInformation ithat imay ibe igrossly ioffensive ior iwhich icauses
iannoyance ior iinconvenience, iare iundefined iterms iwhich itake iinto ithe inet ia ivery ilarge
iamount iof iprotected iand iinnocent ispeech.

The ifreedom iof ithe ipress iis ipart iof ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iguaranteed iunder iArticle
i19(1) i(a). iThis iis ithe ifreedom iof ithe ipress iis ipart iof ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iguaranteed
iunder iArticle i19(1)(a). iThis iis iimportantly, itoday, iwhen imass-communication iand idigital
imedia ihave ibecome iprevalent, ithe imedia iassumes ian ieven igreater iimportance iin iplaying
ithe irole iof ithe iopposition iand ichecking ifacts. iIn ifact, ino iother iinstitution iwields ias
imuch ipower iand iinfluence ion ipublic iopinion ias ithe imedia. iHowever, iin irecent itimes, ia
isection iof ithe imedia, ithrough iits ibiased iand ione-sided ireporting, ihas iunfortunately iaided
iin ithe irestriction ion ifree ispeech. iA inews ichannel iairs ifalse iand idoctored ifootage, iwhile
iothers iopenly iflame ithe ifans iof ithis ipatriotism iand ianti-national idebate. iIt iis iironic ithat
ithe imedia, iwhich iplayed ia icritical irole iin iasserting iits iright ito ifree ispeech iduring iand
iafter ithe iemergency, iand iin ithe iprocess ihelped idevelop iour iArticle i19(1) ijurisprudence,

34
iSuvir iRaghuvansh, i“Sedition iLaw iin iIndia” i4 iIJLLJS i174-184 i(2017)
35
iAIR i2015 iSC i1523

41
iis inow ithe iinstitution ithat iis icompromising iand ichallenging ithe isame ifreedom iof
ispeech iof ithe idissenters' itoday.36
In iIndia ithe iRight iof ia iperson iengaged iin ithe imedia ibusiness iare icovered iunder iArticle
i19(1) i(g) isubject ito irestriction iunder iArticle i19(6) iwhereas ithe iright iof igeneral ipublic
ito ifreedom iof ispeech and iexpression iare icovered iunder ” iArticle i19(1) i(a) imay ibe
ilawfully ienacted. iThe icircumstances iin iwhich ithis ifundamental iright imay ibe icurtailed
iare iwide iranging. iVague icriteria isuch ias i‘decency imorality’ iand ifriendly irelations iwith
iforeign istates’ ilay ia iheavy iburden iof idiscretion ion ithe ijudiciary. iHowever isome
irestrictions iare inecessary ias ipress irights imust inot ibe iallowed ito ioverrun ithe irights iof
iindividuals iand ithe iinterests iof isociety. iArticle i19(2) idoes inot iby iitself icurtail ithe iright
ito ifree ispeech iand iexpression iit iallows iother ilaws ito ibe imade iwhich imay ihave ithat
ieffect. iAs iclearly istated iin iSakal ipaper iv. iunion iof iIndia 37 iexecutive iorders icannot ibe
imade ito irestrict iArticle i19(1) i(a) iusing i19(2) ias ijustification ithe irestriction imust ihave
ithe iauthority iof ilaw. iFurthermore ithe idetermination iof iwhether ithe irestriction iis
ireasonable ior inot ishould ibe imade ion ia icase iby icase ibasis ias ia igeneral istandard icould
inot iadequately icover ithe irange iof icircumstances iin iwhich irestriction imay iapply. iThis
iwill iensure ithat ithe i‘practical iresult’ iof iactions itaken iby ithe istate iis iproperly
iconsidered ito iavoid icases iof idisproportionate irestriction ialong iwith itheir iform.

The ifreedom iof ispeech idoes inot ionly ihelp iin ithe ibalance iand istability iof ia idemocratic
isociety, ibut ialso igives ia isense iof iself-attainment. iIn ithe icase iof iIndian iExpress
iNewspaper iBombay (P) iLtd. iv. iUnion iof iIndia, i 38ifollowing ifour iimportant ipurposes iof
ithe ifree ispeech iand iexpression iwere iset iout:
(i) iit ihelps ian iindividual ito iattain iself-fulfillment,
(ii) it assists iin ithe idiscovery iof itruth.
(iii) It strengthens ithe icapacity iof ian iindividual iin iparticipating iin idecision-making,
iand

36
i(Retd.) iA. iP. iShah, i“Free iSpeech, iNationalism i& iSedition” i1 iIJCAL i53-68 i(2017)
37
iAIR i1962 iSC i305.
38
AIR i1986 iSC i515

42
 (iv) It provides ia imechanism iby iwhich iit iwould ibe ipossible ito iestablish ia ireasonable
ibalance ibetween istability iand isocial ichange.

In ithe icase iof iUnion iof iIndia i& iOrs. iv. iThe iMotion iPicture iAssociation i& iOrs,
ietc.5939, ithe Supreme iCourt iobserved:
“…free ispeech iis ithe ifoundation iof ia idemocratic isociety. iA ifree iexchange iof iideas,
idissemination iof iinformation iwithout irestraints, idissemination iof iknowledge, iairing iof
idiffering iviewpoints, idebating iand iforming ione ishown iviews iand iexpressing ithem, iare
ithe ibasic iindicia iof ia ifree isociety.”
In iPrabhu iDutt iv iUnion iof iIndia 40 ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas iheld ithat ithe iright ito iknow
inews iand iinformation iregarding iadministration iof ithe iGovernment iis iincluded iin ithe
ifreedom iof ipress. iBut ithis iright iis inot iabsolute iand irestrictions ican ibe iimposed ion iit
iin ithe iinterest iof ithe isociety iand ithe iindividual ifrom iwhich ithe ipress iobtains
iinformation. iThey ican iobtain iinformation ifrom ian iindividual iwhen ihe ivoluntarily iagrees
ito igive isuch iinformation.
In iits ilandmark ijudgment iin ithe icase iof iSakal iPapers ithe iSupreme iCourt iruled ithat iArt
i19(2) iof iour iConstitution ipermits iimposition iof ireasonable irestrictions iunder ithe iheads
ispecified iin iArt 19(2) iand ion ino iother igrounds. iFreedom iof ithe ipress icannot ibe
icurtailed, ilike ithe ifreedom ito icarry ion ibusiness, iin ithe iinterest iof ithe igeneral ipublic.
In ianother icelebrated idecision, iBennett iColeman i& iCo. iv iUnion iof iIndia4142 ithe
iSupremeiCourt iagain icame ito ithe irescue iof ithe ipress. iIt iheld ithat ifreedom iof ipress
ientitles inewspapers ito iachieve iany ivolume iof icirculation iand ifreedom ilies iboth iin iits
icirculation iand icontent. iFreedom iof ipress iis ithe iheart iof isocial iand ipolitical iintercourse.
iIt iis ithe iprimary iduty iof ithe icourts ito iuphold ithe ifreedom iof ithe ipress iand iinvalidate
iall ilaws ior iadministrative iactions iwhich iinterfere iwith iit icontrary ito ithe iconstitutional
imandate.
In ithe icase iof iTata iPress iLtd iv iMahanagar iTelephone iNigam iLtd.62 iThe iissue iwas
ithat iwhether ia icommercial ispeech iis iprotected iunder iArt i19(1) i(a). iThe icourt iafter ian

39
iAIR i1999 iSC i2334
40
iAIR i1982 iSC i6
41

43
iextensive ireview iof ithe ijudgments iof ithe iUS iSupreme iCourt iand iprevious iSupreme
iCourt iheld ithat iCommercial iadvertisements iare ientitled ito ithe iprotection iof iArticle
i19(1) i(a).
The iShreya iSinghal ijudgment ioffers ia ivery iclear iexposition iof ithe idifference ibetween
iadvocacy iand iincitement, ias ithe ilatter iis iessential ito iprove ian ioffence iunder iSection
i124A iwhile ithe iformer iis inot ia icriminal iactivity. iThus, iin ithis icase iit iwas iclear ithat
ithe itwo igirls iarrested ifor iposting itheir iviews ion isocial imedia ihave inot iconstituted ithe
ioffence iof isedition.

44
 CHAPTER i4

LEGISLATIVE iPROVISIONS iOF iSEDITION iLAWS iIN iINDIA

1. Indian iPenal iCode, i1860

Section i124-A idefines ithe ioffence iof isedition. iSection i124 iA ireads ias ifollows i–
Whoever, iby iwords, ieither ispoken ior iwritten, ior iby isigns, ior iby ivisible irepresentation,
ior iotherwise, ibrings ior iattempts ito ibring iinto ihatred ior icontempt, ior iexcites ior iattempts
ito iexcite idisaffection itowards ithe iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin iIndia, ishall ibe
ipunished iwith iimprisonment ifor ilife, ito iwhich ifine imay ibe iadded, ior iwith
iimprisonment iwhich imay iextend ito ithree iyears, ito iwhich ifine imay ibe iadded, ior iwith
ifine.
Explanation 1 -The iexpression i“disaffection” iincludes idisloyalty iand iall ifeelings iof
ienmity.
Explanation 2 - iComments iexpressing idisapprobation iof ithe imeasures iof ithe iGovernment
with ia iview ito iobtain itheir ialteration iby ilawful imeans, iwithout iexciting ior iattempting ito
excite ihatred, icontempt ior idisaffection, ido inot iconstitute ian ioffence iunder ithis isection.
Explanationi3 - iComments iexpressing idisapprobation iof ithe iadministrative ior iother
iactioniof ithe iGovernment iwithout iexciting ior iattempting ito iexcite ihatred, icontempt ior
disaffection, ido inot iconstitute ian ioffence iunder ithis isection. iSo ithe ioffence iof
iseditioniunder iSection i124-A iis ithe idoing iof icertain iacts iwhich iwould ibring ihatred ior
contempt, ior icreate idisaffection iagainst ithe iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin iIndia.
iSuch iacts ican ibe icommitted iby imeans iof iwords, ieither ispoken ior iwritten, ior iby isigns,
ior iby iany ikind iof ivisible irepresentation.
The iframework iof ithis isection iwas iimported ifrom ivarious isources ilike i(1) iTreason
iFelony iAct i(operating iin iBritain), i(2) ithe icommon ilaw iof iseditious ilibel iand i(3) ithe
iEnglish ilaw iidentifying ito iseditious iwords. iThe icommon ilaw iof iseditious ilibel igoverned
iboth iactions iand iword ithat irelated ito icitizens iand ithe igovernment, iand ialso ibetween
icommunities iof ipersons. iIt iis ihowever inot iclear ifrom ithe iprovisions iof ithe iSection

45
iwhether iexciting ior iattempting ito iexcite ifeelings iof idisaffection, ihatred ior icontempt iis
ipunishable iper ise ior iwhether iexciting ior iattempting ito iexcite ipeople ito itumult iand
idisorder iis inecessary iingredient iof ithe iofence. iExcept ithe iSection i124A, ithere iare iother
isections ialso iwhich ideals iwith ithe ioffences irelating to isedition. iSection i153A ideals iwith
isedition iby icausing iclass ihatred. iSedition iby ipromoting ireligious iinsult iis ipunishable
iunder iSection i295A.

2. The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973

The iCriminal iProcedure iCode icontains iSection i95 iwhich igives ithe igovernment ithe iright
ito iforfeit imaterial ipunishable iunder iSection i124A ion istating igrounds. iThe isection
irequires itwo iconditions ito ibe ifulfilled:
1. iThat ithe imaterial iis ipunishable iunder ithe isections
2. iThe igovernment igives igrounds ifor iits iopinion ito iforfeit ithe imaterial.

According ito ithe iProvision iof iSection i95 iof ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode iof iIndia ithe
iState iGovernment ihas iPower ito ideclare icertain ipublications iforfeited iand ito iissue isearch
iwarrants ifor ithe isame. iThis iSection iempowers ithe iState iGovernment ito ideclare iby
inotification, ievery icopy iof ithe iNewspaper, ibook ior iany idocument ito ibe iforfeited ito ithe
iGovernment iif iit icontains inay imatter ithe ipublication iof iwhich iis ipunishable iunder ithe
ifollowing iprovisions iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode:

1) Sedition i(Section i124-A) iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode,

2) iPromoting ienmity ibetween iclasses i(Section i153-A) ior,
3) Imputation, iassertions iprejudicial ito iNational iintegration i(Section i153-B), ior
4) iSale ietc. iof iobscene ibooks i(Section i292)
5) Sale ietc. iof iobscene iobjects ito iyoung iperson’s ibooks i(Section i293)
6) Maliciously iinsulting ithe ireligion ior ithe ireligious ibeliefs iof iany iclass i(Section
295-A)
The istate iGovernment iis iauthorized ito ipass ian iorder iof iforfeiture iunder ithis iSection ion
iits isubjective isatisfaction iwhich icannot ibe iconsidered ito ibe iunreasonable irestriction
because ithe iorder imust icontain ithe igrounds ion ithe ibasis iof iwhich iseizure iof ipublication

46
ior idocument iwas ideclared. iRequirement iabout istating igrounds iof iopinion iis iimperative
iand iintegral ipart iof ithe section. iWhere ithe iorder ifailed ito istate ithe igrounds iof iopinion
iof ithe istate iGovernment, iit iwas ilibel ito ibe iset iaside43
Chapter iX iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode ideals iwith imaintenance iof ipublic iorder iand
itranquility iand ipermits iPolice, iMagistrate, iArmed iForces ito icause ian iunlawful ipublic
iassemble ito idisperse, iif inecessary, iby iuse iof iforce iand ito irestore ipublic iorder. iActs
iwhich icould ibe ideemed ito ibe iseditious ican ibe iprevented iby ithese ipre-emptive
iactions.44

3. Constitutionality iof iSection i95 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode:

This iSection idoes inot iviolate ithe iConstitutional iguarantees icontained iin iclauses i(a), i(f)
iand i(g) iof iArticle i19(1) iof ithe iConstitution iand iis itherefore inot ivoid.
It ihas ibeen iheld iin iMohammed iKhalid iv. iChief iCommissioner iof iDelhi65 ithat ithe
iGovernment iwhile iissuing ia inotification iunder iSection i99-A i(now iSection i96) ihas ito
iState ithe igrounds iof iits iopinion ion ithe ibasis iof iwhich iit icomes ito ithe iconclusion ithat
ithe iNewspaper, iBook ior idocument icontains iany iSeditious imatter ior inay imatter iwhich
ipromotes ior iis iintended ito ipromote ifeelings iof ienmity ior ihatred ibetween idifferent
iclasses iof icitizens iof iIndia ior iwhich iis ideliberately iand imaliciously iintended ito ioutrage
ithe ireligious ifeelings iof iany iclass iby iinsulting ithe ireligion ior ithe ireligious ibeliefs iof
ithat iclass. iThe iground iof iopinion iis ivital iand iessential ipart iof ithe inotification ibecause
iit iis ithose igrounds iwhich iwould ireveal ithe ijustification ifor ithe iissuance iof ithe
inotification. iA inotification iwhich idoes inot iincorporate ithe igrounds iof ithe iopinion iwould
inot ibe iin iconformity iwith iLaw.
In iBarjinder iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab,66 iA iMagazine i“Sant iSipahi” iwas iforfeited ion
ithe iground ithat iits ipublication iconstitutes ian ioffence iunder iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian
iPenal iCode. iThe iorder ihas isimply imentioned ithat i“Sant iSipahi” ibrings iand iexcites
idisaffection itowards ithe iGovernment iestablished iby iLaw iin iIndia. iBeyond ithis ithe
iGovernment idid inot istate ithe iground iof iforming isuch ian iopinion. iIt iwas iheld ithat ithe
iorder iof iforfeiture iwas iliable ito ibe iset iaside ibecause ithe iorder iinstead iof istating ithe

43
iAshwani iKumar, iLaw iof iSedition ia icomparative istudy i(2016) i( iKurukshetra iUniversity)
44
N. iMishra, iThe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i97 i(Central iLaw iPublications, iAllahabad, i2006)

47
igrounds iof iopinion isimply ireproduces icertain iwords iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian
iPenal iCode. iAs ifor ithe iConstitutionality iof iSection i95 iis iconcerned it idoes inot ioffend
iArticle i14, i21 iand i19(1) i(g) iof ithe iConstitution ias ithe iSection icontains iinbuilt
isafeguard iand ithe iState iGovernment iis irequired ito istate ithe igrounds iof iits iopinion. iIt
iwas ifurther iheld ithat igiving iof iopportunity iof ihearing ibefore ipassing iorder iof iforfeiture
iis inot ipracticable.
In iHemalatha iv. iGovernment iof iA.P., 45 ithe iorder ipassed iby ithe iGovernment iof iAndhra
iPradesh iforfeiting iTelugu ijournal, i“Srijana” iof iMay i1974 iwas ichallenged. iIn ithis iissue
iof ithe ijournal ifour ipoems iwere ipublished iwhich iin ithe iopinion iof ithe iGovernment
ibrought ior itended ito ibring ithe iGovernment iinto ihatred ior icontempt iand iincited
idisaffection. iThe iparticular ipoems iwere iset iout iin ithe ischedule iof ithe iGovernment
inotification. iThe inotification iwas ichallenged ion ithe iground ithat ithe igrounds iof iopinion
ias irequired iunder iSection i95 iCr.PC iwere inot istated. iIt iwas iheld ithat ithe igrounds iof
iopinion ifor icoming ito ithe iconclusion ithat ithe ipublication iof ithe imatter icontained iin ithe
ijournal isought ito ibe iforfeited iby ian iorder iunder iSection i95 iof iCr.PC iis ipunishable
iunder iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode, iis ian iintegral ipart iof iSection i95, iCr.PC
iand icompliance iwith iits irequirement iis ia isine iqua inon iof ithe ivalidity iof ithe
inotification.68 iIt iis inot ienough imerely ito ireproduce ithe ilanguage iof iSection i124-A iof
ithe iIndian iPenal iCode, iwithout ispecifying ias ito ihow ior iin iwhat imanner ithere ihas ibeen
icontravention iof ithe iprovisions iof ithat iSection.
In ithis icase ithe iimpugned iorder ithe iparticular ipoems iin ithe ijournal iforfeited iwere iset
iout iin ithe ischedule ito ithe iorder iand ithe iorder iproceeded ito istate ithat ithose i“verse
ibring iinto ihatred iand icontempt iand iexcite idisaffection itowards ithe iGovernment
iestablished iby iLaw iin iIndia.” iIt iwas itherefore iheld ithat ithe igrounds iof iopinion iare
ibased iupon ithe ilanguage iof ithe ipoems iset iout iin ithe ischedule iand iit iwas iunnecessary
ito istate iany ifurther igrounds iopinion. iIt iwas ifurther iobserved iin ithis iCase ithat i“the
iprinciple ithat iif isome iof ithe igrounds iof idetention iare iinvalid ion ithe iground ithat ithey
ihave ino inexus iwith ithe imaintenance iof ithe iSecurity iof ithe iState ietc, ithe iorder iof ithe
idetention ihas ito ibe iset iaside iin iits ientirely ieven ithough iother igrounds iare ivalid iand
irelevant icannot ibe iextended ito ithe icase iof ian iorder iof iforfeiture iof ia ibook icontains

45
i1993 iC.R iL.J i2040 i(P i& iH)

48
isuch iobjectionable imatter, ipublication iof iwhich ibe ipunishable iunder iSection i124-A iof
ithe iIndian iPenal iCode ior ithe iother isection ireferred ito iin iSection i95 iCr.PC iCode, ithe
iGovernment ihas ithe iRight ito ideclare ithe ipublication iforfeited.”
i
i
4. iInsult ito iIndian iNational iFlag, iConstitution iof iIndia iand iNational iAnthem.

In 1971, ithe iParliament ienacted ithe iPrevention iof iinsults ito iNational iHonour iAct, i 46iof
i1971 ito iprevent iinsults ito iNational iHonour. iIt iis ia ismall iAct iconsisting iof ithree
isections, iSection i1 iextends iits ioperation ito ithe iwhole iof iIndia, iSection i2 ienvisages ithat
ia iperson iin ipublic iplace iburns, imutilates idefaces, idefiles, idisfigures, idestroys, ior
itramples iupon ior iotherwise ibrings iinto icontempt ithe iNational iFlag ior ithe iConstitution
iof iIndia, ihe icommits ian ioffence.
Similarly, isection i3 iprovides ithat iprevention iof ithe isinging iof ithe inational iAnthem ior
icausing idisturbance iin iany iAssembly iengaged iin isuch isinging iis ipunishable. iHowever
ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iBijoe iEmmanuel, iheld ithat inot ijoining iin isinging ithe inational
ianthem idoes inot iamount ito idisrespect ito ithe inational iflag.
Punishment iunder iboth isections i2 iand i3 imay iextend ito ithree iyears iof iimprisonment ior
ifine ior iboth.
Section i2 iof ithe isaid iAct istates ias iwhoever iin iany ipublic iplace ior iin iany iother iplace
iwithin ipublic iview iburns, imutilates, idefaces, idefiles, idisfigures, idestroys, itramples iupon
ior iotherwise ishows idisrespect ito ior ibrings iinto icontempt i(whether iby iwords, ieither
ispoken ior iwritten, ior iby iacts) ithe iIndian iNational iFlag ior ithe iConstitution iof iIndia ior
iany ipart ithereof, ishall ibe ipunished iwith iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich imay iextend ito
ithree iyears, ior iwith ifine, ior iwith iboth.
In ithe icase iof iN.R. iNarayana iMurthy iv. iKannada iRakshana iVakeelara73, ithe iKarnataka
iHigh iCourt iobserved:
According ito iArticle i51A i(a), iit ishall ibe ithe iduty iof ievery icitizen iof iIndia ito iabide iby
ithe iConstitution iand irespect iits iideals iand iinstitutions, ithe iNational iFlag iand ithe
iNational iAnthem. iNational iFlag, iNational iAnthem iand ithe iConstitution iof iIndia iare ithe

46
iAIR i1968 iDel i13

49
isymbols iof isovereignty iand ithe iintegrity iof ithe iNation. iPublic iacts iof iinsults ito ithese
isymbols imust ibe iprevented. iThe iPrevention iof iInsults ito iNational iHonour iAct, i1971
iwas ienacted iand ibrought ion ithe iStatute ibook. iSection i2 iof ithe iNational iHonour iAct
ideals iwith iinsult to iIndian iNational iFlag iand iConstitution iof iIndia. iSection i3 iof ithe
iNational iHonour iAct isays ithat iwhoever iintentionally iprevents ithe isinging iof ithe iIndian
iNational iAnthem ior icauses idisturbance ito iany iassembly iengaged iin isuch isinging ishall
ibe ipunished iwith iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich imay iextend ito ithree iyears, ior iwith
ifine, ior iwith iboth". iSection i3A iprescribes ienhanced ipenalty ion isecond iand isubsequent
iconvictions iunder iSections i2 iand i3 iof ithe iNational iHonour iAct.

50
 CHAPTER i5

JUDICIAL iPRONOUNCEMENTS
i
1. The itrials iof iBal iGangadhar iTilak
Tilak ifaced itwo isedition itrials. iOne iin i1897 iand ithe iother iin i1908. iHe iwas iconvicted
iin iboth. iTilak ialso isued iSir iValentine iChirol ifor ilibel iin ian iEnglish icourt iin i1919 ibut
ilost. iThe itwo sedition itrials iTilak ifaced iare iof ihuge iimportance. iBefore iwe idelve iinto
ithe itrials, ilet ius iquickly igo ithrough ithe ilaw iapplicable ito isedition iat ithat itime iand
ihow iit icame iinto ibeing.
In i1897, iKesari, iof iwhich iby ithat itime iTilak iwas ithe ipublisher, iproprietor iand ieditor,
icarried ian iarticle icalled i‘Shivaji’s iUtterances’. iThe ipaper ihad iresurrected i17th icentury’s
iiconic iHindu iMaratha iking iShivaji iand irecorded ihis iputative istatements iat ithe iexisting
istate iof iaffairs iin icolonial iIndia. iThere iis ia ibrief ibackground ito ithis ias iwell. iIn i1894,
ia ischolar icalled iProf iRP iKarkaria iread ia ipaper ion iShivaji ibefore ithe iRoyal iAsiatic
iSociety iin iBombay. iTwo iyears ilater, ithe imovement iacquired ishape iof ia ifestival ito
ihonour iShivaji. iUnfortunately, iMaharashtra iwas iafflicted iwith ian iepidemic iof iplague iin
i1897 isoon iafter ia ifamine iin i1896. iThe iBritish ienacted ian iEpidemic iDiseases iAct,
i1897. iThis iAct igave idrastic ipowers ito iexamine, idetain, isearch iand isegregate ipeople.
iOnly iwhite isoldiers iwere igiven ithe i‘plague iduty’. iThe iShivaji ifestival ibegan iin iJune
i1897 i(please inote ithe ihot isummer iin imid-June). iTilak ipresided iover ithe ifestival iand
ialso ispoke. iA ipoem iwas ialso isung iby isomeone. iThese iwere icarried iout ias i‘Shivaji’s
iUtterances’ iin iKesari iby iTilak. iA iweek ilater, ipresident iof ithe iPlague iRelief iCommittee
iWC iRand iand ione iLt iCE iAyerst iwere imurdered iat imidnight iwhile ireturning ihome.
iMedia iinsinuated iTilak’s ispeech iand i‘Shivaji’s iUtterances’. iInterestingly iat ithat itime,
ithe igovernment ihad ijust iconfirmed ihis ielection ito ithe iLegislative iCouncil. iWithin ia
imonth, ithe igovernment igave isanction ito iTilak’s iprosecution ifor isanction. iThe iplace iof
itrial iwas ichosen ito ibe iBombay iinstead iof iPoona ifrom iwhere iKesari iwas ipublished.
iThe icase iwas icommitted ito isessions iin ithe iBombay iHigh iCourt. iAdvocate-General
iBasil iLang iconducted ithe iprosecution. iDinshaw iD iDavar iappeared ifor ithe idefence. iThe

51
inine-member ijury i(as iopposed ito i12 iin iEngland) icomprised iof ifive iEuropean iChristians,
itwo iHindus, ione iParsi iand ione iEuropean iJew. iJustice iArthur iStrachey iat ithe iBombay
iHigh iCourt idelivered ithe icharge ito ithe ijury. iThe itwo icharges iagainst iTilak iwere
ipublication iof i‘Shivaji’s iUtterances’ iin iKesari ion i15 iJune i1897 iand ithe ireport iof ithe
imeeting ion i13 iJune i1897. iThe imeaning, iscope iand iwidth iof isedition iwere idiscussed iat
ilength. iThe iMarathi itranslation icaused ia ilot iof ifurore. iBy ia imajority iof i6:3, iwith iall
ithree iIndians isupporting iTilak, iTilak iwas iadjudged iguilty. iInterestingly, ithe ithen
iCriminal iProcedure iCode igave iIndians ithe iright ito ibe itried iby ia ijury iconsisting iof ia
imajority iof iIndian ijurors. iHowever, isome icases iwere idetermined iby ithe igovernment
idiscretionally iand ithe itrial ijudge icould ibe itried iby ia i‘special ijury’. iThese ispecial ijuries
ihad ia imajority iof inon-Indian ijurors ion ithem. iFurthermore, ineither ithe ijudge inor ithe
ijurors iknew iMarathi. iJustice iArthur iStrachey ireadily iaccepted ithe ijury’s iverdict iand
isentenced Tilak ito i18 imonths’ irigorous iimprisonment. iJustice iStrachey ilaid iseveral
igrounds, iincluding ipresumed iintent, ibad ifeelings, iincitement inot ibeing imandatory,
iimpact’s iinconsequentiality, iclass iof ireaders i(Marathi ireaders iwere itreated ias
iunintelligent), ispeech ias ia iwhole, iimmaterial itruth iand ievidence ifor ispoken iword. iThe
ipublisher iwas idischarged ias inot iguilty. iTilak iwas, ihowever, ipersuaded ito iaccept
iconditional irelease iand iwas ireleased ion i6th iSeptember i1898.
This icase, ithe ifirst iresulting iin ithe iconviction iunder isedition ilaw iin iIndia, iwas,
ihowever, inot ithe iend ifor iTilak. iIn i1898, iSection i124A iwas ireplaced iwith ia icompletely
idifferent itext iand iits iambit iwas iquantified iimmensely.
In iDecember i1907 iat ithe iSurat iSession, ithe iCongress igot isplit iinto imoderates iand
iextremists. iTilak iwas ithe ileader iof iextremists. iOn i30 iApril i1908, iKhudiram iBose iand
iPrafulla iChakravarty ithrew ibomb iat ia ivehicle iin iwhich ithey ibelieved iDouglas
iKingsford, isessions ijudge iat iMuzaffarpur, iwas ibeing icarried. iIt, ihowever, ikilled ithe
iwife iand idaughter iof ian iEnglish ibarrister. iIt iled ito ia iseries iof iarrests iand imedia
icampaign iagainst ithe iAnglo-Indian ipress ifor ibeing i‘extremist’. iOn i24 iJune i1908, iTilak
iwas iarrested ifrom iBombay ion ia icharge iof isedition iand i153A iIPC iin irespect iof itwo
iarticles icarried iin iKesari ion i12 iMay iand i9 iJune i1908. iThe iarticle idated i12 iMay iwas
ititled i‘The iCountry’s iMisfortune’ iand ithat iof i9 iJune ihas ititled i‘These iRemedies iAre
iNot iLasting’. iHis ihouse iin iPoona iwas isearched iby ithe ipolice ithat ifound ia ipostcard

52
iwith ithe inames iof itwo ibooks ion iexplosives iwritten ion iit. iThe iChief iPresidency
iMagistrate iof iBombay ideclined ian iapplication ifor ibail. iSanction ifor ithe iprosecution iwas
iswiftly igranted iand iTilak iwas icommitted ito istand itrial iat ithe isessions iof ithe iBombay
iHigh iCourt. iTilak iwas idefended iby iMohammed iAli iJinnah, ilater iby iJoseph iBaptista
iand ilater iby ihimself iassisted iby ia ibattery iof icounsel. iJinnah iskillfully iargued ithat isince
iTilak ihad iattacked ithe ibureaucracy ithrough ihis ispeeches, iand inot ithe igovernment, ihe
icould inot ibe icharged iwith isedition. iThe ijudge iin icharge iof ithis icase, iJustice iBachelor,
iheld ithat iwhile ithe ieffect iof ithe iwords iin ithe ispeech iwould inot inaturally icause
idisaffection, ii.e. ihostility, ienmity ior icontempt, ithey iwould icreate ia ifeeling iof
idisapprobation i(which iwould inot iamount ito isedition).47
The isessions ijudge iwas inone iother ithan iTilak’s icounsel iin ithe i1897 itrial, iDD iDavar.
iHe ialso ideclined ibail ito iTilak. iThe iacting iAdvocate iGeneral, iwho iled ithe iprosecution,
ihad ialso ibeen
Siddharth iNarrain, i“Disaffection iand ithe iState: ithe iLaw iof iSedition iin iIndia” iThe iHoot,
Nov. i3, i2010. Tilak’s icounsel iearlier iin ia idifferent imatter. iTilak iargued ithat ithe iarticles
iwere iwritten iin ithe icourse iof icontroversy ibetween ithe iEuropean ipress iand iIndian
ivernacular ipress. iHe ialso iargued ithat ithose iarticles icritique ia ityrannous ibureaucracy
irather ithan ithe ityrannous iBritish irule. iThe ispecial ijury icomprised iof iseven iEuropeans
iand itwo iIndians. iIndian ijurors ireturned ia iverdict iof inot iguilty iwhile ithe iEuropean
ijurors iadjudged iTilak iguilty. iAgain, ithe ijurors iand ithe ijudge iboth ihad ino iknowledge iof
iMarathi. iJudge iDavar iasked iTilak iif ihe ihad ianything ito isay. iHis ireply iwas; “All iI
iwish ito isay iis ithat, iin ispite iof ithe iverdict iof ithe ijury, iI imaintain ithat iI iam iinnocent.
iHere iare ihigher ipowers ithat irule ithe idestiny iof ithings iand iit imay ibe ithe iwill iof
iProvidence ithat ithe icause iwhich iI irepresent imay iprosper imore iby imy isuffering ithan iby
imy iremaining ifree.”
Tilak iwas isentenced ito isix iyears iof itransportation ito iBurma; ithree iunder ieach isection.
iLeave ito iappeal ito iPrivy iCouncil imade iby iBaptista ion ibehalf iof iTilak iwas ideclined.
iTilak iserved iout ihis isentence iwhich iwas icommuted ito isimple iimprisonment iin
iMandalay iand ilater ireturned ito iIndia iwith ieven imore iinfluence ion ithe ipolitics iin ithe
icountry.

47
iThe iUnlawful iActivities i(Prevention) iAct, i2012 i(Act i3 iof i2013

53
 2. Emperor iv iMohandas iKaramchand iGandhi iand iShankarlal iGhelabhai iSankar

Mohandas iKaramchand iGandhi, ibeing ithe ieditor iof ithe ipaper i‘Young iIndia’ iand
iShankarlal iGhelabhai iSanker iprinter iand ipublisher iwere icharged ion i11th iMarch, i1922
iby iL.N. iBrown, Additional iDistrict iMagistrate, iAhmedabad iunder isection i124A, iIPC, ifor
ibringing ior iattempting ito ibring iinto ihatred ior icontempt ior iexciting ior iattempting ito
iexcite idisaffection itowards iHis iMajesty’s iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin iBritish
iIndia, iby imeans iof ithe iwritten iwords icontained iin ithe iarticles i“Tampering iwith
iLoyalty” i(29th iSeptember, i1921), i“The iPuzzle iand iits iSolution” i(15th iDecember, i1921),
iand i“Shaking ithe iManes” i(lion) i(23rd iFebruary, i1922) ipublished iat iAhmedabad.
Gandhiji iinstead iof icontesting ithe icharge ipleaded iguilty. iIn ihis iwritten istatement, ihe
iexplained ithe ireasons ithat icompelled ihim ito ipromote i“disaffection” itowards ithe
iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin iBritish iIndia.

The iwritten istatement isubmitted iby iGandhiji igives iin ibrief ian iaccount iof ithe istate iof
iaffairs iprevailing iin iIndia iduring ithe iBritish irule ithat iprompted ihim ito iundertake isuch
isteps iis igiven ibelow:
“I iowe iit iperhaps ito ithe iIndian ipublic iand ito ithe ipublic iin iEngland, ito iplacate iwhich
ithis iprosecution iis imainly itaken iup, ithat iI ishould iexplain iwhy ifrom ia istaunch iloyalist
iand ico-operator iI ihave ibecome ian iuncompromising idis-affectionist iand inon-co-operator.
iTo ithe iCourt itoo iI ishould isay iwhy iI iplead iguilty ito ithe icharge iof ipromoting
idisaffection itowards ithe iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin iIndia….The ifirst ishock icame
iin ithe ishape iof ithe iRowlatt iAct, ia ilaw idesigned ito irob ithe ipeople iof iall ireal ifreedom.
iI ifelt icalled iupon ito ilead ian iintensive iagitation iagainst iit. iThen ifollowed ithe iPunjab
ihorrors ibeginning iwith ithe imassacre iof iJallianwala iBagh iand iculminating iin icrawling
iorders, ipublic ifloggings iand iother iindescribable ihumiliations….. iThe iKhilafat ipromise
iwas inot ito ibe iredeemed.
The iPunjab icrime iwas iwhite-washed iand imost iculprits iwent inot ionly iunpunished ibut
iremained iin iservice iand iin isome icases icontinued ito idraw ipensions ifrom ithe iIndian
irevenue, iand iin isome icases iwere ieven irewarded. iI isaw itoo ithat inot ionly idid ithe
ireforms inot imark ia ichange iof iheart, ibut ithey iwere ionly ia imethod iof ifurther idraining

54
iIndia iof iher iwealth iand iof iprolonging iher iservitude….I icame ireluctantly ito ithe
iconclusion ithat ithe
British iconnection ihad imade iIndia imore ihelpless ithan ishe iever iwas ibefore, ipolitically
iand ieconomically. iA idisarmed iIndia ihas ino ipower iof iresistance iagainst iany iaggressor iif
ishe iwanted ito iengage iin ian iarmed iconflict iwith ihim…. iMy iexperience iof ipolitical
icases iin India ileads ime ito ithe iconclusion ithat iin inine iout iof iten ithe icondemned imen
iwere itotally iinnocent. Their icrime iconsisted iin ithe ilove iof itheir icountry. iIn ininety-nine
icases iout iof ihundred ijustice ihas ibeen idenied ito iIndians ias iagainst iEuropeans iin ithe
icourts iin iIndia. iThis iis inot ian iexaggerated ipicture. iIt iis ithe iexperience iof ialmost ievery
iIndian iwho ihas ihad ianything ito ido iwith isuch icases. iIn imy iopinion, ithe iadministration
iof ithe ilaw iis ithus iprostituted iconsciously ior iunconsciously ifor ithe ibenefit iof ithe
iexploiter…. iSection i124A under iwhich iI iam ihappily icharged iis iperhaps ithe iprince
iamong ithe ipolitical isections iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode idesigned ito isuppress ithe iliberty
iof ithe icitizen. Affection icannot ibe imanufactured ior iregulated iby ilaw. iIf ione ihas ino
iaffection ifor ia iperson ior isystem, ione should ibe ifree ito igive ithe ifullest iexpression ito
ihis idisaffection, iso ilong ias ihe idoes inot icontemplate, ipromote ior iincite ito iviolence. iBut
ithe isection iunder iwhich iMr. iBanker iand iI were icharged iis ione iunder iwhich imere
ipromotion iof idisaffection iis ia icrime. iI ihave istudied isome iof ithe icases itried iunder iit,
iand iI iknow ithat isome iof ithe imost iloved iof iIndia's ipatriots ihave ibeen iconvicted iunder
iit. iI iconsider iit ia iprivilege, itherefore, ito ibe icharged iunder ithat isection. iI ihave
iendeavoured ito igive iin itheir ibriefest ioutlines ithe ireasons ifor imy idisaffection….I iam
ihere, itherefore, ito iinvite iand isubmit icheerfully ito ithe ihighest ipenalty that ican ibe
iinflicted iupon ime ifor iwhat iin ilaw iis ia ideliberate icrime iand iwhat iappears ito ime ito ibe
ithe ihighest iduty iof ia icitizen. iThe ionly icourse iopen ito iyou, ithe iJudge, iis ieither ito
iresign iyour ipost iand ithus idissociate iyourself ifrom ievil, iif iyou ifeel ithat ithe ilaw iyou
iare icalled iupon ito iadminister iis ian ievil iand ithat iin ireality iI iam iinnocent; ior ito iinflict
ion ime ithe iseverest ipenalty iif iyou ibelieve ithat ithe isystem iand ithe ilaw iyou iare
iassisting ito iadminister iare igood ifor ithe ipeople iof ithis icountry iand ithat imy iactivity iis
itherefore iinjurious ito ithe ipublic iweal."
Gandhiji iwas iaccordingly isentence ito isix iyears iof isimple iimprisonment ifor isedition
iunder isection i124 iA iIPC iand iwas ikept iin iPoona iJail.

55
Cases iafter iIndependence

1. State iof iChhattisgarh iv. iBinayak iSen

Dr. iBinayak iSen, ia imedical idoctor iand iactivist iwith ithe iPeople’s iUnion ifor iCivil
iLiberties, ia ilong-time icritic iof igovernment ipolicy itowards ithe iMaoists, iwas idetained ion
iMay i14, i2007, iunder ithe iChhattisgarh iSpecial iPublic iSecurity iAct. iSen ihad iearlier
icriticized ithis i2006 ilaw ibecause iit ipermitted idetention ifor i“unlawful iactivities,” ia iterm
iso iloosely idefined ithat iit ican ibe iused ito icurtail ipeaceful iactivities iof iindividuals iand
icivil isociety iorganizations iin iviolation iof ithe iIndian iconstitution iand iinternational ihuman
irights ilaw.
The iauthorities iinitially idetained iSen ion ithe igrounds ithat ihe iwas iacting ias ia icourier
ibetween ijailed iMaoist ileader iNarayan iSanyal iand ibusinessman iPiyush iGuha, iwho iwas
iallegedly ia iMaoist isupporter. iSen ihad ibeen ivisiting ithe i70-year-old iSanyal ias ihis
idoctor iunder ithe isupervision iof iprison iauthorities, iwho iwere iauthorized ito isearch ihim.
iDuring iDr. iSen’s itrial ithe ijail iauthorities isaid ithat ithey ihad inever ifound iDr. iSen iacting
ias ia icourier. iAltogether ihe imet iSanyal i33 itimes iin iRaipur iCentral iJail, iall iwith iprior
ipolice ipermission.
Sen iwas ieventually icharged iwith, iamong iother icrimes, itreason, icriminal iconspiracy,
isedition, ianti-national iactivities, iand iwaging iwar iagainst ithe istate. iEvidence ipresented iby
ithe ipolice iincluded iletters ithat iwere iallegedly idelivered iby iSen, iand idocuments iand
iMaoist ipropaganda imaterials ithat iwere iapparently irecovered ifrom ihis ihouse. iThe ipolice
ibelieved ithat iSen imet iwith ithe iMaoists iwhen ihe itraveled ito iremote iareas ito iprovide
imedical iaid ito ithe itribal ipopulation iin iChhattisgarh istate’s iBastar iarea iand irelayed
imessages ito iSanyal. iEvidence ipresented iby ithe ipolice iincluded imaterial igathered ifrom
ihis icomputer, imostly idocuments ialready iin ithe ipublic idomain, iletters ithat iwere
irecovered ifrom iGuha ithat iSen ihad iallegedly idelivered, ia ipost-card ifrom iJune i2006
iwritten ito iSen iby iSanyal ifrom iRaipur ijail iregarding ihis ihealth ias iwell ias ihis ilegal
case, iduly isigned iby ithe iprison iauthorities, inewspaper iclips, iand isome idocuments ithat
iwere idescribed ias iMaoist ipropaganda imaterials.
On iDecember i24, i2010, ia iRaipur idistrict icourt iconvicted iSen ion isedition icharges iand
isentenced ihim ito ilife iimprisonment. iThe ijudge ifound ino ievidence ithat iSen iwas ia

56
imember iof iany ioutlawed iMaoist igroup ior ithat ihe iwas iinvolved iin iviolence iagainst ithe
istate. iImmediately iafter ithe iverdict, iSen’s ibail iwas irevoked iand ihe iwas iarrested.
In iApril i2011 ithe iSupreme iCourt igranted iSen ibail. iSupreme iCourt iJustices iH.S. iBedi
iand iC.K. iPrasad istated: i“We iare ia idemocratic icountry. iHe imay ibe ia isympathizer. iThat
idoes inot imake ihim iguilty iof isedition.… iNo icase iof isedition iis imade iout ion ithe ibasis
iof imaterials iin ipossession iunless iyou ithat ishow ithat ihe iwas iactively ihelping ior
iharboring ithem i[Maoists].”

2. Kedar iNath iSingh iv. iState iof iBihar

In ithis icase ithe iConstitutionality iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode iwas
i.impugned. iThus ithe icourt iwas irequired ito isquarely ideal iwith ithe irelationship ibetween
iSedition iand ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iThe iConstitutional ichallenges iarose
iout iof ia inumber iof icases iinvolved ispeeches ithat-in ispecific iterms-called ifor ian iarmed
irevolution ito ioverthrow ithe iGovernment. iIn i1962 ithe iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia idecided
ion ithe iambit iand iscope iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode. iIn ithis icase ithe
iaccused iin ithe imain iof ifour iappeals iwas ia imember iof ithe iforward icommunist iparty
iand imade ia iharsh ispeech iagainst ithe iGovernment iin ithe iPower iof ithe icontaining ia
igood ideal iof iviolent ilanguage. iThough iit iwas inot icontended iby ithe iaccused ithat ihis
ispeech idid inot ifall iunder ithe iambit iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode ias
iconstrued iby ithe iSupreme iCourt, iit ibecame inecessary ito idecide ion ithe iConstitutionality
iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode iparticularly iby ithe iSupreme iCourt, iit
ibecame inecessary ito idecide ion ithe iConstitutionality iof iSection i124-A iparticularly iand
ion ithe iconstruction iof ithe iSection igenerally, iin iorder ito idispose iof ithe iother ithree
iappeals. iSinha, iCJ, iwho idelivered ithe iJudgment iof ithe icourt, iexamined ithe ientire
ihistory iof iinterpretation iof iSection i124-A iof ithe Indian iPenal iCode. iThere iwas ino
idoubt ithat iprovision iof iSection i124-A iwas iviolation iof ithe iright ienshrined iin iArticle
i19(1) i(a). iThe iquestion iwas iprimarily iwhether ithe iSection iwould ibe isaved iby ibringing
iit iunder ithe iambit iof ithe irestriction ienumerated iin iArticle i19(2). iThe icourtweighted ithe
iconflicting imeaning igiven ito iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode igives iby ithe
ifederal icourt iand ithe iPrivy iCouncil. iSinha, iCJ iaccepted ithe inecessity iof ihaving ithe
iSedition. iHe ifavoured ithe ipresumption iof iConstitutionality ithat iwas icreated iby iaccepting

57
ithe iview iof ithe ifederal icourt. iThe icourt idecided ithat iwas icreated iby iaccepting ithe
iview iof ithe ifederal icourt. iThe icourt idecided ithat iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal
iCode ishould imake ipenal ionly ithose imatters ithat ihad ithe iintention ior itendency ito iincite
ipublic idisorder ior iviolence.
Therefore iSection i124-A iwas iheld iConstitutional. iThe irestriction iimposed ion ifreedom iof
ispeech icould ibe isaid ito ibe iin ithe iinterest iof ipublic iorder. iIn iKedar iNath iSingh icase
icourt isaid ithat i‘every istate i, iwhatever iits iform iof iGovernment ihas ito ibe iarmed iwith
ithe iPower ito ipunish ithose iwho, iby itheir iconduct, ijeopardize ithe isafety iand istability iof
ithe istate, ior idisseminate isuch ifeelings iof idisloyalty ias ihave ithe itendency ito ilead ito ithe
idisruption iof ithe istate ior ito ipublic idisorder.’ iThe iConstitutional ivalidity iof iSection i124-
A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode iby iSupreme iCourt ithat ithe igist iof ithe iOffence iof iSedition
iis ithat ithe iwords iwritten ior ispoken ihave itendency ior iintention iof icreating ipublic
idisorder iand iheld ithe iSection iConstitutionally ivalid. iThe iSupreme iCourt isaid ithat iunless
ithe iaccused iincited iviolence iby itheir ispeech ior iAction, iit idid inot iconstitute iSedition, ias
iit iwould iotherwise iviolate ithe iright ito ifreedom iof ispeech iguaranteed iby ithe
iConstitution. iDespite ithis, iit iadded, i‘over ithe iyears ivarious istate iGovernments ihave
idisregarded ithe iruling iand iaccused ihuman irights iActivists, ijournalists,
i
3. Shreya iSinghal iv. iUnion iof iIndia48
The iMumbai ipolice ihad iarrested itwo iwomen, iShaheen iDhada iand iRinu iSrinivasan iin
i2012, iforposting iallegedly ioffensive iand iobjectionable icomments ion iFacebook iabout ithe
ipropriety iofshutting idown ithe icity iof iMumbai iafter ithe ideath iof ia ipolitical ileader, iBal
iThackeray. iThe ipolice iarrested ithe itwo igirls ias iper iSection i66A iof ithe iInformation
iTechnology iAct iof i2000 i(ITA), ithat ipunishes iany iperson iwho isends ithrough ia
icomputer iresource ior icommunication idevice iany iinformation ithat iis iextremely ioffensive,
ior iwith ithe iknowledge iof iits ifalsity, ithe iinformation iis itransmitted ifor ithe ipurpose iof
icausing iannoyance, iinconvenience, idanger, iinsult, iinjury, ihatred, ior iill iwill.
I

48
(2013) i12 iSCC i73
58
 4. Tara iSingh iGopi iChand iv. iThe iState
In ithis icase ithe ivalidity iof iS. i124-A iof iIndian iPenal iCode iwas idirectly iin iIssue. iTwo
prosecutions iwere ipending iin ithe iCourt iof ia iSpecial iMagistrate iat iKarnal iagainst iTara
iSingh. iThe prosecutions irelate ieach ito ia ispeech idelivered iby iMaster iTara iSingh, ione iin
iJuly i1950 iat Shahabad iin ithe iKarnal iDistrict iand ithe iother iin iAugust i1950 iat
iLudhiana. iThe iprosecution iin each iinstance iwas iunder iSection i124A iand i153A, iPenal
iCode iand iSection i24 i(a), iEast iPunjab Public iSafety iAct. The iEast iPunjab iHigh iCourt
ideclared ithe isection ivoid ias iit icurtailed ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand expression iprovided
iby iArticle i19 i(1) i(a) iof ithe iConstitution. Weston iC.J. iObserved iin ithis icase i“As
ipointed iout iin ithe ipassage ifrom ithe icharge iof iStrachey iJ. which iI ihave iset iout, ithe
ioffence iconsists iin iexciting ior iattempting ito iexcite iin iothers icertain ibad feelings
itowards ithe iGovernment. iThe ifurther iconsequences iwhich imay ifollow ithe icommission of
ithe ioffence iare iimmaterial. iIndia iis inow ia isovereign idemocratic iState. iGovernments
imay igo and ibe icaused ito igo iwithout ithe ifoundations iof ithe iState ibeing iimpaired. iA
ilaw iof isedition thought inecessary iduring ia iperiod iof iforeign irule ihas ibecome
iinappropriate iby ithe ivery inature iof the ichange iwhich ihas icome iabout. iIt iis itrue ithat
ithe iframers iof ithe iConstitution ihave inot iadopted the ilimitations iwhich ithe iFederal iCourt
idesired ito ilay idown. iIt imay ibe ithey idid inot iconsider iit proper ito igo iso ifar. iThe
ilimitation iplaced iby iClause i(2) iof iArticle i19 iupon iinterference iwith ithe freedom iof
iSpeech, ihowever, iis ireal iand isubstantial. iThe iunsuccessful iattempt ito iexcite ibad feelings
iis ian ioffence iwithin ithe iambit iof iSection i124A. iIn isome iinstances iat ileast ithe
unsuccessful iattempt iwill inot iundermine ior itend ito ioverthrow ithe iState. iIt iis ienough iif
ione instance iappears iof ithe ipossible iapplication iof ithe isection ito icurtailment iof ithe
ifreedom iof speech iand iexpression iin ia imanner inot ipermitted iby ithe iconstitution. iI
ithink, itherefore, ithat ithe conclusion imust ibe ithat iSection i124A, iPenal iCode, ihas ibecome
ivoid ias icontravening ithe iright iof freedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iguaranteed iby
iArticle i19 iof ithe iconstitution.”
Weston isaid ithat i“There ican ibe ino idispute ithat iSection i124A iis ia irestriction ion ithe
ifreedom iof speech iand iexpression iwhich iis iguaranteed ito iall icitizens iby icl. i(1) iof
iArticle i19 iof ithe Constitution. iThe iquestion iis iwhether ithe isection iis isaved iby iClause

59
i(2) iof iArticle i19. iI ithink, therefore, ithat ithe iconclusion imust ibe ithat iSection i124A,
iPenal iCode, ihas ibecome ivoid ias contravening ithe iright iof ifreedom iof ispeech iand
iexpression iguaranteed iby iArticle i19 iof ithe
constitution.”

5. Ram iNandan iv. iState 49

The iconstitutional ivalidity iof isection i124A iof ithe iIPC iwas ichallenged iin ithis iAllahabad
iHigh Court icase ithat iinvolved ia ichallenge ito ia iconviction iand ipunishment iof ithree
iyears iimprisonment of ione iRam iNandan, ifor ian iinflammatory ispeech igiven iin i1954.
iThe icourt ioverturned iRam Nandan’s iconviction iand ideclared isection i124A ito ibe
iunconstitutional. iJustice iGurtu isaid, “As ia iresult iof ithe iconventions ias ihas ibeen
iremarked iof iParliamentary iGovernment, ithere is ia iconcentration iof icontrol iof iboth
ilegislative iand iexecutive functions iin ithe ismall ibody of imen icalled ithe iMinisters iand
ithese iare ithe imen iwho idecide iimportant iquestions iof policy. The imost iimportant icheck
ion itheir ipowers iis inecessarily ithe iexistence iof ia ipowerfully organized iParliamentary
iopposition. iBut iat ithe itop iof ithis ithere iis ialso ithe ifear ithat ithe Government imay ibe
isubject ito ipopular idisapproval inot imerely iexpressed iin ithe legislative ichambers ibut iin
ithe imarket iplace ialso iwhich, iafter iall, iis ithe iforum iwhere individual icitizens iventilate
itheir ipoints iof iviews.
If ithere iis ia ipossibility iin ithe iworking iof iour idemocratic isystem i-- ias iI ithink ithere iis
i—iof criticism iof ithe ipolicy iof iMinisters iand iof ithe iexecution iof itheir ipolicy, iby
ipersons untrained iin ipublic ispeech ibecoming icriticism iof ithe iGovernment ias isuch iand iif
isuch criticism iwithout ihaving iany itendency iin iit ito ibring iabout ipublic idisorder, ican ibe
icaught within ithe imischief iof iSection i124-A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode, ithen ithat
iSection imust ibe invalidated ibecause iit irestricts ifreedom iof ispeech iin idisregard iof
iwhether ithe iinterest iof public iorder ior ithe isecurity iof ithe iState iis iinvolved, iand iis
icapable iof istriking iat ithe ivery root iof ithe iConstitution iwhich iis ifree ispeech i(subject iof
ilimited icontrol iunder iArticle 19(2)).” iHowever, ithis idecision iwas ioverruled iin i1962 iby
ithe iSupreme iCourt iin iKedar iNath iSingh iv. State iof iBihar, iwhich iheld ithat ithe isedition

49
iAIR i1959 iAll i101

60
ilaw iwas iconstitutional. iThe iCourt, iwhile iupholding the iconstitutionality iof ithe ijudgment
idistinguished ibetween i“the iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw” and i“persons ifor ithe itime
ibeing iengaged iin icarrying ion ithe iadministration”. iThe iCourt distinguished iclearly
ibetween idisloyalty ito ithe iGovernment iand icommenting iupon ithe imeasures of ithe
igovernment iwithout iinciting ipublic idisorder iby iacts iof iviolence.
I

61
RECENT JUDGEMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION N.V. RAMANA;

CJI., SURYA KANT; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. MAY 11, 2022
IN S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA

ORDER

1. These petitions are filed challenging the Constitutionality of Section 124 A of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter IPC) relating to the offence of Sedition.

2. Having heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the
documents available on record, we may observe that this matter was listed for the first
time on 15.07.2021. Thereinafter, this Court, after hearing the parties, issued notice on
27.04.2022. When this matter was next taken up, learned Solicitor General of India
prayed for additional time of 2 to 3 days for filing of counter-affidavit. Accordingly, time
was granted till the end of the week for filing counter-affidavit. Again, the matter was
listed on 05.05.2022, wherein the Solicitor General again sought additional time to file a
counter affidavit. On that date, this Court while granting the Solicitor General time to file
counter affidavit, directed the parties to file their written submissions on the preliminary
issue of the necessity of reference to a larger bench prior to the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, on 07.05.2022, written submissions were filed on behalf of Solicitor

General of India.

4. On 09.05.2022, an affidavit was filed on behalf of Union of India, averring as under: “3. I
state and submit that so far as Section 124A is concerned, there are divergence of views
expressed in public domain by various jurists, academicians, intellectuals and citizens in
general. While they agree about the need for statutory provisions to deal with serious

62
 offences of divisive nature affecting the very sovereignty and integrity of the Country,
acts leading to destabilizing the government established by law by means not authorised
by law or prohibited by law. Requiring a penal Provision for such purposes is generally
accepted by everyone in legitimate State interest. However, concerns are raised about its
application and abuse for the purposes not intended by law. 4. The Hon’ble Prime
Minister of India has been cognizant of various views expressed on the subject and has
also periodically, in various forums, expressed his clear and unequivocal views in favour
of protection of civil liberties, respect for human rights and giving meaning to the
constitutionally cherished freedoms by the people of the country. He has repeatedly said
that one of India’s strengths is the diverse thought streams that beautifully flourish in our
country.

5. The Hon’ble PM believes that at a time when our nation is marking ‘Azadi Ka Amrit
Mahotsav’ (75 years since independence) we need to, as a nation, work even harder to
shed colonial baggage that has passed its utility, which includes outdated colonial laws
and practices. In that spirit, the Government of India has scrapped over 1500 outdated
law since 2014-15 . It has also ended over 25,000 compliance burdens which were
causing unnecessary hurdles to people of our country. Various offences which were
causing mindless hindrances to people have been decriminalised. This is an ongoing
process. These were laws and compliances which reeked of a colonial mind set and thus
have no place in today’s India.

6. The Government of India, being fully cognizant of various view being expressed on the
subject of sedition and also having considered the concern of civil liberties and human
rights, while committed to maintain and protect the sovereignty and integrity of this great
nation, has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision of section 124A of the
Indian Penal Code which can only be done before the Competent Forum.

7. In view of the aforesaid it is this respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may not
invest time in examining the validity of Section 124A once again and be pleased to await

63
 the exercise of 3 reconsideration to be undertaken by the Government of India before an
appropriate forum where such reconsideration is constitutionally.” In view of the above,
it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this
Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu,
and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of
the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. 6. This Court
is cognizant of security interests and integrity of the State on one hand, and the civil
liberties of citizens on the other. There is a requirement to balance both sets of
considerations, which is a difficult exercise. The case of the petitioners is that this
provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-dates the Constitution itself, and is being
misused. The Attorney General had also, on an earlier date of hearing, given some
instances of glaring misuse of this provision, like in the case of recital of the Hanuman
Chalisa. 7. Therefore, we expect that, till the re-examination of the provision is complete,
it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by the
Governments.

8. In view of the clear stand taken by the Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the
following order in the interest of justice:
(a) The interim stay granted in W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with
W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated 31.05.2021 shall continue to operate
till further orders .
(b) We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from
registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive
measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of
law is under consideration.
(c) If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties
are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The
Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the
present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India.
(d) All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed
under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to

64
 other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no
prejudice would be caused to the accused.
(e) In addition to the above, the Union of India shall be at liberty to issue the
Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union
Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC.
(f) The above directions may continue till further orders are passed. 50

50
Live law order dated 11 may 2022

65
 CHAPTER i6

INDIANiSEDITIONiLAW INiCOMPARISONiWITHiOTHER COUNTRIES

i
1. United iKingdom
In iEngland, ithe iforerunner iof ithe icrime iof isedition iwas ithe icrime iof itreason. iUnder ithe
iTreason Act, i1795, iany iact iwhich iendangered ithe iperson iof ithe iKing, ihis igovernment
ior ithe iconstitution would ibe iconsidered itreason. iThe iTreason iFelony iAct iof i1848 iis
istill ion ithe istatute ibooks.
The icrime iof isedition iextends ito ia] ipublication iof iseditious ilibel ib] iutterance iof
iseditious iwords and ic] iconspiracy ito ido ian iact iin ifurtherance iof iseditious iintention. iIn
iall ithese icases, ia iseditious intention ihas ito ibe iproved. iA iseditious iintention iis ione
iwhere ithe iperson iof ithe isovereign ior iof the igovernment, ithe iconstitution, ieither iHouse
iof iParliament, ior ithe ijustice iadministration isystemn could ibe ibrought iinto ihatred ior
icontempt. iIt ialso iincludes ithe ialteration iof ichurch ior istate iby unlawful imeans iand iany
iincitement iof idisaffection ior idiscontent iamong ithe isubjects ior promoting ihostility iamong
idifferent iclasses iof ipeople.
These ioffences iat icommon ilaw ihave ialso ibeen icodified ito isome iextent. iSection i1 iof
ithe iCriminal Libel iAct, i1918 ialso imirrors ithe idefinition. iIncitement ito iMutiny iand
iDisaffection iAct criminalizes ipromoting iill iwill iamong ithe imembers iof ithe iarmed
51
iforces.The ilast iknown iprosecution iof isedition iwas iin i1972; iand isubsequent iattempts
ito iprosecute political iactivities iby iactivists iand iintellectuals ihave inot isucceeded. iThe
icase irelating ito iSedition was ithe ione iinvolving ithe ipublication iof iSalman iRushdie’s
52
ibook, iThe iSatantic iVerses i(R iv.Chief iMetropolitan iStipendiary). iThis ibook iwas
ialleged ito ibe ia i“scurrilous iattack ion ithe iMuslim religion” iand iresulted iin iviolence iin
ithe iU.K. ias iwell ias ito ia iseverance iof idiplomatic irelations between ithe iU.K. iand iIran.
iAn iapplication ito iobtain ia isummons iagainst iMr. iRushdie iand ihis publisher iwas
idismissed, ion ithe iground iof inon-existence iof iseditious iintent iby ieither iof ithe parties

51
iR iv iChief iMetropolitan iStipendiary iMagistrate, iex iparte iChoudhury i[1991] i1 iQB i429, i[1991] i1 iAll
iER i306
52
Ibid

66
iagainst iany iof ithe iUK’s idemocratic iinstitutions.53 The iCriminal iLibel iAct iand ithe
icommon ilaw ioffences iof iseditious ilibel iand icriminal idefamation were ito ibe irepealed,
iaccording ito ithe iLaw iCommission iin ithe iUK. iFollowing ithis, iin iFebruary 2010, ithe
iJoint iCommittee ion iHuman iRights iprepared ia inote ion ipress ifreedom, iprivacy iand ilibel.
Inter ialia, ithey icommented ion ithe icrime iof iseditious ilibel iand icriminal idefamation.
iSince ithe European iConvention ion iHuman iRights iguarantees iwide-ranging iprotection ifor
ipolitical ispeech, these icrimes iwould ibe iin icontravention isince ithey iwere ilikely ito ihave
ia i“chilling ieffect” ion criticism iand icensure iof igovernment. iHence, ithese ioffences iwould
ialso iviolate iArticle i12 iof ithe Human iRights iAct, i1998 iin ithe iU.K., iwhich iwas ienacted
iin ifurtherance iof ithe iECHR. In ithe iUK, iSeditious ilibel iwas iabolished iunder ithe
iCoroners iand iJustice iAct i2010. iThis iabolition the iconsequence iof ithe ilaws icontravention
iof ithe iUK’s iHuman iRights iAct i1998 iand ithe underlying irights iof ithe iEuropean
iConvention ion iHuman iRights iwhich ithe iHRA iupheld. iPrior ito this ihowever, ithe ilaw
iwas irarely iengaged iand ithe irule iunder iex iparte iChoudhury irestricted ithe application iof
iseditious ilibel ito icases iwhere ithere iwas ia iprovocation ito iviolence.

However, ithe iprotection iawarded iby ithe iECHR idoes inot iextend ito inon-European
inationals. iIn addition, ithe iTerrorism iAct iof i2000 iincludes ioffenses isuch ias i“inciting
iterrorist iacts” iand “providing itraining ifor iterrorist ipurposes iat ihome ior ioverseas.”
Section i73 iof ithe iCoroners iand iJustice iAct i2009 iabolished ithe icommon ilaw ioffences iof
sedition iand iseditious ilibel. iThe ilaws ion isedition iwere iindeed iquite iarcane iin itoday’s
isociety where ifreedom iof ithought iand iexpression iis ia iprotected iright iin ithe iU.K. iunder
ithe iHuman Rights iAct i1998. iEven ibefore ithe ienactment iof ithe iHuman iRights iAct, iback
iin i1977 ithe iLaw Reform iCommission ihad irecommended ithat ithese ioffences ibe
iabolished. In iabolishing ithe icrime iof isedition, ithe iprimary iconsideration iwas ithat ithe
ilanguage iin iwhich ithe offence iwas iframed iwas iarchaic iand idid inot ireflect ithe ivalues iof
ipresent iday iconstitutional democracies. iFurther, ialthough ithe iprosecutions iwere ifew iand
ifar ibetween, ieven ithe isporadic uses iof ithe ilaw ihad ia i“chilling ieffect” ion ifree ispeech.
iHowever, ialthough ithe icrime iof isedition has ibeen idone iaway iwith, ithe iTerrorism iAct,

53
Clare iFeikert-Ahalt, i“Sedition iin iEngland: iThe iAbolition iof ia iLaw iFrom ia iBygone iEra”, iLibrary iof
iCongress,

67
i2000 icontains ioffences iof i“inciting iterrorist iacts” and iseeking ior i“providing itraining ifor
iterrorist ipurposes iat ihome ior ioverseas”, iwhich iare ias broadly idefined iand ias ivague ias
ithe iearlier ioffences.
In i1977 ithe iUnited iKingdom iLaw icommission isaid ithat ito isatisfy isuch ia itest iof
iintention iit would ihave ito ibe ishown ithat ithe idefendant ihas iincited ior iconspired ito
icommit ieither ioffences against ithe iperson ior ioffences iagainst iproperty ior iurged iother ito
iriot ior ito iassemble iunlawfully. If ishown ithe idefendant iwould ibe iguilty iof ieither
iincitement ior iconspiracy ito icommit ione iof ithose offences. iThe iUnited iKingdom iLaw
icommission iconcluded ithat ithere iwas ilikely ito ibe isufficient range iof iother iextant
ioffences icovering iconduct iamounting ito iSedition.
It iis ibetter iin iprinciple ito irely ion ithese iordinary istatutory iand icommon iLaw ioffences
ithan ito ihave resort ito ian ioffence iwhich ihas ithe iimplication ithat ithe iconduct iin iquestion
iis i“political”. iThe preliminary iview iof ithe iUnited iKingdom iLaw icommission iwas,
itherefore ithat ithere iwas ino ineed iSection i73- iAbolition iof icommon ilaw ilibel ioffences
ietc
The ifollowing ioffences iunder ithe icommon ilaw iof iEngland iand iWales iand ithe icommon
ilaw iof iNorthern iIreland
are iabolished—
a. the ioffences iof isedition iand iseditious ilibel;
b. the ioffence iof idefamatory ilibel;
c. the ioffence iof iobscene ilibel.
i
International iObligation:
India iis ia ipart iof ithe iInternational icommunity, iand ihas icertain ilegal iobligation iregarding
ithe freedom iof iexpression. iArticle i253 iempowers iparliament ito imake iimplementing
iInternational agreements, iInternational iinteraction iis ino ilonger ithe ipreserve iof ithose
iprivileged ienough ito travel. iIndia iis ia iparty ito ithe iUnited iNations icharter iwhich iis ithe
igoverning idocument iof ithe United iNations, ithe ilargest iand imost iinclusive iInternational
iOrganization iin ithe iworld. iIn i1940s India isupported ithe iUniversal ideclaration iof iHuman
iRight i(UDHR); ithe idefinitions ispecified iin that idocument iare ikey ito iunderstanding ithe
iUnited iNations icharter. iArticle i19 iof ithe iUDHR provides ifor ifreedom iof iopinion iand

68
iexpression i“Through iany iMedia” Additionally, iIndia iratified ithe iInternational icovenant
ion iCivil iand ipolitical iRights i(ICCPR) article i19 iof ithe iICCPR isafeguard ifreedom iof
iexpression iin iaddition ito iother ifundamental Rights. iIt iis iclear ithat ithe iInternational
icommunity iregards ifreedom iof iexpression ias ikey component iof idemocracy. iThe
iimportance iof ithe ifree iflow iof iInformation ihas ialso ibeen emphasized, iimplying isupport
ifor ia ifree ipress. iIn i1946, ithe iUN igeneral iassembly iadopted resolution i19(1) iwhich
istated ithat i“freedom iof iInformation iis ia ifundamental iHuman iRight iand the itouchstone
iof iall ithe ifreedom ito iwhich ithe iUnited iNations iis iconsecrated.” iFrom ian International
iperspective iit iis ilogical ito iread ipress iRights iinto iarticle i19(1) i(a) iand i(g) iof
itheConstitution ithough ithey iare inot iexpressly imentioned.92 Law icommission iof iIndia
ihas itaken iup ifor iconsideration ithe iquestion iwhether ithe ifundamental Right iof ifreedom
iof ispeech iand iexpression ias iguaranteed iby ithe iConstitution ishould ibe imade available ito
icompanies, icorporations iand iother iarticulate iperson iand iif iso isubject ito iwhat conditions.
iThe ineed ifor itaking iup ithe isubject iand isome iof ithe idimensions iof ithe iinquiry iwill ibe
presently iindicated. iIn iIndian iConstitution iarticle i19(1) iguarantee ito icitizens isix ifreedom
iin iall.
Of ithese ifirst iis ithe iRight ito ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iin iarticle i19(1) i(a).
iThis iRight iis subject ito ithe ipower iof ithe istate ito imake ia iLaw iimposing ireasonable
irestrictions ion ithe iRight iin the iinterest iof ithe ivarious iconsiderations iset iout iin iarticle
i19(2). iThe imain iobject iof iLaw commission ito ideal iwith iis ia irestriction imade iexplicit
iin ithe iConstitution iitself, inamely ithat ithe provision iof ithe iarticle i19 ican ibe iavailed iof
ionly iby icitizens. iThe iuse iof ithe iword i“citizen” iin article i19 ihad ithe ieffect iof ileaving
icorporate ibodies iout iof ithe iscope iof ithe iarticle. iThe iresult iis that ione iimportant
isegment iof ithe iNation idoes inot ihave iany iConstitutional iprotection iin irespect of ispeech
iand iexpression. iInstitution iand iOrganization, ibeing iimpersonal iin icharacter icannot qualify
ifor icitizenship. iThe iprotection iof iarticle i19 iis ithus inot iavailable ito ithem iand iis
iconfined to inatural iperson ion ia ireading iof ithe ijudicial ipronouncement. iIn iany icase ithe
iposition iin ithis regard iis inebulous. iThere iare inumerous iOrganization iand iinstitution ithat
ineed ithe ifreedom iof speech iand iexpression. iThey ifall iinto iseveral ibroad icategories.

69
 1. Commercial iOrganization i(for iexample icompanies iowning iNews iPapers)
iwhoseprimary iobject iis ito idisseminate ior ipublish inews iwith ia imotive iof iprofit.
2. Entities iconnected iwith ithe ipublication iof iviews i(example icompanies iowing
magazines) iagain iwith ia iprofit imotive.
3. There iare iOrganizations isuch ias icompanies iproducing ior idistributing ifilms iwhich
iare engaged iin icertain iActivity iwherein ithough ithe idissemination iof inews ior ithe
ipropagated in icircumstances ito iwhich iquestion iof ifreedom iof iexpression ibecome
ivery icrucial. iThe depiction iof ilife iin iall iits ireality iand iin iall iits ivariety ithrough
ivisual ior iaudio ivisual imedia is idone ison iintensively iin ithe iActivities iof ithese
iOrganizations. iThe iquestions iof ifreedom of iexpression ipossess ireal isignificance
ifor ithem.
4. One ishould imention inon-commercial icorporations iwhich iare iengaged iin iActivities
either idirectly iinvolving ithe idissemination iof iNews ior ipropagation iof iviews ior
occasionally iinvolving isuch ioperations.
5. There iare icorporate ibodies ilike iuniversities iand iinstitutions ihaving iuniversity
istatus whose iActivity imay ioccasionally iinvolve iquestion iof ifreedom iof ispeech
iand iexpression particularly iwhere ithe iuniversities iActively iOrganize ilectures iand
iseminars ior ibring iout publication ias ia ipart iof itheir iActivities. iIn ithis iconnection
iit imay ibe iinterest ito imention that ibar icouncil iby istatue inow iempowered ito
54
iorganize iseminar iand ibring iout publications. While iinternational iinstruments ican
ionly ibe ienforced iin ia icountry iif ithe icountry ihas iratified iit, they istill ihave ian
ioverbearing isignificance iand iinfluence ilaw-making. iAs ia imember iof ithe iUnited
Nations iGeneral iAssembly, iIndia ihas iratified ithe iUDHR iand iICCPR iand,
itherefore, ihas enforcement ivalue iin ithe icountry. iIn iIndia, iwhile ithe ioffence iof
isedition iis iper ise inot iin iviolation of iinternational istandards, iany irestriction ion
ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression ineeds ito ibe justified ias irecognized iby
iinternational icovenants iand itreaties.55

54
iThe iAdvocates iAct, i1961 i(Act i25 iof i1961), is. i6
55
iSupra inote i111.

70
 CHAPTER i7

RECENT iDEVELOPMENTS iIN iSEDITION iLAW

In ithe iwake iof irecent idevelopments, iwhile isome icall iit ia i'political igimmick', imany
ilegal iexperts believe ithat ithe iarchaic ilaw ineeds ito ibe idone iaway iwith. iSome iof ithe
irecent icases iillustrate ihow the iSedition iLaw ihas ibeen iused ito icurb ifree ispeech iand
iexpression. iWhile ia ilot iof isocial iactivists are ibooked iunder i124-A, iauthorities ifail ito
iprove ithat ithe iacts ifall iunder ithe idefinition iof Sedition. According ito ia imedia iwatchdog,
iThe iHoot, i11 isedition icases iwere ibooked iagainst i19 ipersons iin the ifirst ithree imonths
iof i2016 icompared ito inone iduring ithe isame iperiod iin ithe iprevious itwo years. iNational
iCrime iRecords iBureau idata ifor i2014 ishow ithat iout iof i47 isedition icases iwhich were
iregistered iacross ithe icountry, i58 ipeople iwere iarrested iand ionly ione iperson iwas
iconvicted. This ilaw ihas ibeen itruly idescribed ias ia idouble-edged isword ithat ican ibe
ioffensive iat itimes iand ican fall iunder ifreedom iof ispeech iin isome iother icases. When ithe
iSupreme iCourt ispecifically ilaid idown ithat ithe iprovisions iof isection i124A iare ionly made
iout iwhere ithere iis ia itendency ito ipublic idisorder iby iuse iof iviolence ior iincitement ito
violence, ifor ithe iother iinterpretation i(earlier iafforded iby ithe iPrivy iCouncil) iwould
iconflict iwith the ifundamental iright iunder iArt i19(1) i(a),95 ihow iis iit ithat iso imany icases
iand iFIRs icontinue ito ibe registered iagainst imedia ipersons iand iothers ifor itheir ispeeches
iand iwritings?
The iconviction iof iDr. iBinayak iSen iunder iSection i124A iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode
i(IPC), iamong other ioffences, iby ia itrial icourt iin iRaipur, iand icharges iof isedition
ithreatened iagainst iArundhati Roy, iVaravara iRao iand iS.A.R. iGeelani, iwho ispoke iat ia
iseminar ititled i‘Azadi, ithe iOnly iWay’ organised iby ithe iCommittee ifor ithe iRelease iof
iPolitical iPrisoners iin iDelhi, ihave igiven ian iurgent new ivoice ito ithe idebate ion ithe
irelevance iof ithe ilaw ion isedition, ias imedia ipersonnel iand ihuman rights iactivists iacross
ithe icountry icontinue ito ibe isuppressed iby ithis isection. iThe iparticular injustice iof
iconvicting ia iperson iwho ihas imerely iexercised ihis iconstitutional iright ito ifreedom iof
expression ihas iattracted ithe ination’s iattention ito ithe idraconian icolonial ilegacy iof ia
ihundred iand forty iyear iold ioffence.

71
i
The itruth iremains ithat iwhile ithe iSC ihas istayed ifirm iin iits iopinion ion isedition ifrom
iKedar iNath onwards, ithe ilower icourts iseem ito icontinuously idisregard ithis iinterpretation
iof ithe ilaw, imost recently iseen iin ithe iverdict iagainst iDr iBinayak iSen. iThe ilaw ion
isedition iis ibeing iused ito istem any isort iof ipolitical idissent iin ithe icountry, iand ialso iany
ialternate ipolitical iphilosophy iwhich igoes against ithe iruling iparty’s imindset. The icharge
iof isedition ilaw ibeing iused ito istem idissent iis inot iwithout iforce; iBinayak iSen, Arundhati
iRoy, iDr iE. iRati iRao, iBharat iDesai, iManoj iShinde, iV iGopalaswamy i(Vaiko), iall ithese
individuals idid ithings ifar ifrom icreating ia itendency ito iincite iviolence iagainst ithe istate,
iand iwere expressing itheir iopinion ithrough ispeeches ior iwritings iwhich icriticised ispecific
iactivities iof ithe State. Going ithrough ithe imany inames ithat iappear iwhen ione ilooks
ithrough ithe irecent ihistory iof ihow section i124A iis ibeing iapplied ialso igives iweight ito
ithe icharge ithat ia igreat idivide ipresently iexists between ithe iSupreme iCourt iand ithe ilower
icourts, ione iwhich iis iresulting iin imany iinstances iof injustice ifor ithe ijudges iseem
iignorant iof ithe iposition iof ilaw iin imany iparts iof ithe icountry. iThe problem iis imore iso
iat ithe ilevel iof ithe itrial icourt iand ithe iinvestigating iauthorities, iwith ia inumber of icases
ishowing ithat ithe iHigh iCourt igrants ibail ior iacquits ithe iaccused iin imany iostensible
icases of i‘sedition’. The ipunishment iof ithose iaccused iof isedition ibegins iwith ithe ilegal
iprocess. iEven iif ithey iare ultimately ifreed, ithey ihave ito igo ithrough ia ilong ilegal
iprocess, iwhich iserves ias ia ipunishment iand a ideterrent ifor ithose iwho idare ito ispeak iup.
iThe iHindu iwhile idiscussing icases iunder isedition iin 2010 ialso ihighlights ithe ibizarre icase
iof ia ilecturer iin iSrinagar ibeing iarrested iunder isection i124A because ihe iadded iquestions
56
ion ithe iunrest iin iKashmir iValley iin ian iexamination. iThis iis inot ian isolated iincident.
iThe iTimes iof iIndia’s iresident ieditor iat iAhmedabad, iBharat iDesai, ifacedm charges ialong
iwith ia isenior ireporter iand ia iphotographer, ifor iquestioning ithe icompetence iof police
iofficials iand ialleging ilinks ibetween ithem iand ithe imafia.

iThis iwas ipreceded iby icharges against ione iManoj iShinde, ithe ieditor iof ian ieveninger iin
iSurat ifor i‘instigating ipeople iagainst ia duly ielected igovernment’. iHe ihad iblamed iChief

56
Priscilla iJebaraj, i“Binayak iSen iamong iSix iPeople iCharged iWith iSedition iin i2010” iThe iHindu, iJan. i1,

72
 57
iMinister iModi ifor ithe idisastrous ifloods iwhich had ioccurred iin ithe icity. It iappears ias
iif ithe iupper iechelons iof ithe icriminal ijustice isystem iare itotally idisconnected ifrom the
ilower irungs, iwith ithe iTrial iCourts iand ithe ipolice iauthorities icontinually iharassing
iindividuals for ino ireason iin ilaw. iThe ilaw ion isedition iis iclearly ibeing iused ito itarget
ispecific ipeople iwho choose ito iexpress idissent iagainst ithe ipolicies iand iactivities iof ithe
igovernment. iBinayak iSen’s case iis ithe ione iof ithe imost istriking iexamples iof ithe iunjust
inature iof isedition ilaws. iSen iis ione iof the ifew imedical idoctors ito iwork iin ithe iinteriors
iof iChhattisgarh. iHis iwork iin ipublic ihealth ihas been irecognized iglobally. iHis iwork iwith
ithe iPeople’s iUnion ifor iCivil iLiberties iwas groundbreaking, iespecially ihis iinvolvement iin
isome iof ithe iearliest idocumentation iof ithe igross violations iby ithe istate isponsored
ivigilante igroup, iSalwa iJudum. iThis ihas imade ihim ilanguish iin jail, iafter ibeing iconvicted
iby ithe itrial icourt ion iflimsy icharges iand idenied ibail iby ithe iBilaspur High iCourt. iThe
irecent icase iagainst iSudhir iDhawale, ia ireputed iDalit isocial iactivist iand ieditor iof Vidrohi,
iat iGondia, iMaharashtra iis ianother iexample iof ithe iblatant imisuse iof ithe ilaw. iDhavale iis
well known ifor ihis iwork iin igetting ijustice ifor ivictims iof icaste iatrocities iin iMaharashtra.
According ito ithe ipolice, ia istate icommittee imember iof ithe ibanned iCPI i(Maoist) istated
iin ian interrogation ithat ihe ihad igiven ihis icomputer ito iDhavale. iHis iarrests ihave isparked
iwidespread protests iamong iDalits iand iprogressive iMaharashtrians.58
The irampant imisuse iof ithe isedition ilaw idespite ithe ijudicial ipronouncement iin iKedar
iNath icase circumscribing ithe iscope iof ithe ilaw ihas imeant ithat ithere iis ia iserious case
ifor irepealing ithis ilaw.
The iabove iexamples idemonstrate ithat iArticle i19(1)(a) icontinues ito ibe iheld ihostage iby
iSection 124A iwhich ihas iindeed iproved iGandhi iright iin ibeing ithe i‘prince iof ithe
ipolitical isections iof ithe IPC.’ iThere iis ino ijustification ifor ia idraconian ilaw iof ithis
inature, icreated ito isquash ipeaceful iand non-violent idissent, ito ioperate iin ia icountry,
iwhich iclaims ito ibe ithe iworld’s ilargest idemocracy.
i
Scope iof iSedition: iRecent iDecisions

57
iSubash iGatade, i“Article iWriting iEquals iSedition?” iCounter iCurrents.Org, iJun. i3, i2008 iavailable iat:
http://www.countercurrents.org/gatade030608.htm.
58
iTeltumbde, i“Yet iAnother iBinayak iSen” i46 iEPW i(2011)

73
With ithe iKedar iNath irationale ilocked isafely iin iplace, ilet ius ifast iforward ito ithe iadvent
iof ithe twenty-first icentury. iIndia iseems ito ihave iwoken iup ito ia igeneration ithat iexpects
ithe ihighest iof freedoms ifrom iits iConstitution. iIt irefuses ito ibe ishackled iby idraconian
imeasures imasked ias reasonable irestrictions; iit irefuses ito ibe istifled iby ithe imisuse iof ian
iarchaic ilaw. iThe iIndia iof ithe twenty-first icentury iis iyoung, ifearless iand iis iwilling ito
irise iagainst ianything ithat imakes ithe ifoul mistake iof idictating ithe iterms iof ia idemocracy
ithey iare iso ifamiliar iwith. iThe ilaw iof iany iland must ibe ia ireflection iof ithe isociety iin
iwhich iit iexists. iThis ihighlights ione iof ithe imost ipertinent questions iof ithe ipresent
icontext i– ihow iis iSection i124A, ibeing ian iadmittedly icolonial iimport, perceived itoday?
The ilaw iof isedition, iin irecent itimes, ihas ibeen ithe isubject iof imajor icriticism. iDespite
ithe principles ilaid idown iin iKedar iNath,59 iwhich ihas ibeen iaccepted ias ithe iprimary itest
ifor idetermining the icommission iof ithe ioffences iof iSedition i– ithe inewspapers iof ithe
icountry iis iriddled idaily iwith the inews iof iSection i124A ihaving ibeen islapped ion isome
inew i“offender”. iOf icourse, ithe iCourts iin appreciation iof ithe isame icases ihave igone ion
ito iacquit imost iof ithe iafore-mentioned ioffenders. This, ihowever, idoes inothing ito iredeem
iall ithat iis ilost iin ithe inumerous iCourt ivisits, ilegal ifees borne iby ithe ialleged ioffender,
ipolice idetention isuffered iby ithem, ithe itrauma iand ithe unimaginable imental iburden ion
ithem ifor ihaving iallegedly icommitted ithe isingle igravest ioffence of iwaging iwar iagainst
ithe iState. Binayak iSen iv. iState iof iChattisgarh: iIn ione iof ithe imost iinfamous icases iof
iSedition iin ithe irecent past, ithe iChhattisgarh iHigh iCourt icreated ihistory ifor imany iwrong
ireasons. iConvicting ithe accused ifor ithe ioffence iof iSedition, ithe iHigh iCourt ipassed ia
ijudgment ifor iwhich iit ihas idrawn ia lot iof iflak. iThe iaccused ithat iwas iin ipossession iof
iand ihad iordered ithe idistribution iof icertain letters icontaining iinformation iregarding ipolice
iatrocities iand iNaxal iliterature iwas iconvicted iof Sedition ikeeping iin iview ithe iwidespread
inaxalite iviolence iagainst ithe iState. iBlatantly disregarding ithe iafore-mentioned iprinciple
iof idirect i“incitement ito iviolence” iestablished iin Kedarnath, ithe iHigh iCourt irefused ito
iallow ian iobjective iapplication iof ithe ifrequently imisused provision iof ilaw iconnecting ithe
iaccused iwith ithe iNaxals iand itheir ioffences. iIn ian iinteresting iturn of ievents, ihowever,
ithe iSupreme iCourt ion iappeal igranted iDr. iSen ibail iand icommenting ion ithe merits iof

59
Kedar iNath iSingh iv. iState iof iBihar, iAIR i1962 iSC i955

74
ithe icase ihighlighted ith0e iimportance iof iprotecting ithe ifundamental ifreedom iof ispeech
and iexpression iwhile ialso iappreciating ithe iunderlying iprinciple iof “Guilt iby iAssociation”.
Gurjatinder iPal iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab:99 iIn ithis icase, ithe iaccused igave ia
i“ProKhalistan” speech iat ia ireligious iceremony iand icommented ion ithe iConstitution,
iwhich iwas ifollowed iby sword-raising iand iunpleasant islogans. iAdopting iand iupholding
ithe iprecedent iset iby ithe iSupreme Court iin iBalwant iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab,100 iwhich
ihad isimilar ifacts iand icircumstances, ithe Chandigarh iHigh iCourt iheld ithat ithe icasual
iraising iof islogans icannot ibe iheld iseditious ias iit idid not ipoint ito ia idirect iincitement iof
iviolence ior ipublic idisorder. iThe iaccused iwas itherefore, acquitted iof icharges iu/s i124A.
P.J. iManuel iv. iState iof iKerala: 60 iDecided iby ithe iKerala iHigh iCourt, ithis icase iinvolved
ia iposter that iexhorted ipeople ito iboycott ithe iLegislative iAssembly ielections iof i“masters
iwho ihave ibecome swollen iexploiting ithe ipeople”. iThis iposter iand iits icirculation ibrought
ifor ithe iaccused icharges u/s i124A, iobserving ithat ieven iSection i124A imust ibe iread iwith
ithe iintent iand ispirit iof ithe Constitution iand inot ithe iColonizers iof ia ibygone iera. iIt
ifurther iappreciated ithe iessential ingredient iof i“incitement ito iviolence”, ithe itrue imeaning
iof i“disaffection iagainst ithe igovernment” in imodern itimes iand iacquitted ithe iaccused.
iInterestingly, ihowever, ithe iCourt ialso iapplied Section i196 iof ithe iCrPC, iaccording ito
iwhich ia iCourt ican ionly itake icognizance iof ia icomplaint involving ian ioffence iagainst ithe
iState iif isuch icomplaint ihas ibeenexpressly iauthorized iby ithe Government. Sanskar
61
iMarathe iv. iState iof iMaharashtra: iA isimilar iview ias ithe iaforementioned icase iwas
taken ihere iby ithe iBombay iHigh iCourt, iacquitting ithe iaccused i– icartoonist, iAseem
iTrivedi iof charges iu/s i124A. iFurther, ithe icourt ialso icame iout iwith ia iseries iof
iguidelines ito ibe ifollowed iby the iMaharashtra iPolice ibefore ibooking isomeone ifor ithe
ioffence iof iSedition. iBased ion ithese guidelines, ithe iMaharashtra igovernment icame iout
iwith ia icircular ilaying idown igrounds ifor invocation iof isection i124A, iwhich iit iwas ithen
iforced ito iwithdraw ifollowing ia icase iin ithe iHigh Court iquestioning iits iconstitutional

60
iP.J. iManuel iv. iState iof iKerala, iILR i(2013) i1 iKer i793.

61
iP.J. iManuel iv. iState iof iKerala, iILR i(2013) i1 iKer i793.

75
In iSeptember i2012, ithe ipolitical icartoonist iand iactivist, iAseem iTrivedi iwas icharged
iunder ithe sedition ilaw ifor ihis icartoons isatirizing iwidespread icorruption iby imeans iof
isending ioffensive messages iunder ithe iInformation iTechnology iAct iand ithe ilaw ifor
iPrevention iof iInsults ito National iHonour. iGiving iorders ifor iTrivedi’s irelease, ithe
iBombay iHigh iCourt isaid ithat ihis cartoons idid inot iincite iviolence, ithat ithey ionly
iexpressed ianger iwith ithe istate imachinery, iwhich is ithe iright iof ievery icitizen. Cases iof
isedition iagainst iwriter iArundhati iRoy, ihardline iHurriyat ileader iSyed iAli iShah iGeelani,
revolutionary ipoet iVaravara iRao iand iothers ion icharges iof igiving i“anti-India” ispeeches
iat ia convention ion iKashmir, i“Azadi: iThe iOnly iWay”, iand, iwhereby, iadvocating
iindependence ifor the idisputed iKashmir iRegion. iHowever, ithe icharges ifailed ito istand iup
ito ijudicial iscrutiny. Sudhir iDhawale, ia ireputed iDalit isocial iactivist iand ieditor iof iVidrohi
imagazine iwas iarrested iin January, i2011 iwhen ithe imagazine iopenly icriticised ithe istate
iof iMaharashtra iover icases iof isocial inequalities. iPolice ialleged iDh awale’s iinvolvement
iin iNaxal iactivities iin iMaharashtra. iIn i2014, ia Sessions iCourt iacquitted ihim iafter i40
imonths.
In i2010, iNoor iMuhammed iBhat, ia ilecturer iin iGandhi iMemorial College, iSrinagar, iwas
iarrested because ihe iincluded iquestions ion ithe iunrest iin iKashmir iValley iin ian
iexamination. iHe iwas granted iinterim ibail iby ithe iJammu iand iKashmir iHigh iCourt iin
i2011.
One iwould iassume ithat iwith ideveloping itimes iand ithe iplethora iof ilegal iprecedents,
iclearly setting iout ithe iboundaries iof ithe ilaw iof isedition iin iIndia, ithe ireckless iinvocation
iof iSection i124A against iunsuspecting iindividuals iwould ireduce. iThis, ihowever, ihas inot
iproved ito ibe ithe icase i– and ithe irecent ipast ihas ibeen iflooded iif inot icompletely
ishrouded iby imany iof ithe istrangest instances iof ialleged i“sedition”; isome iworthy iof ia
imention iin ithis iarticle ibeing: iIn iMarch, i2014, around i67 iKashmiri istudents ifrom iSwami
iVivekanand iSubharti iUniversity iin iMeerut iwere\ charged iu/s i124A ifor imerely icheering
ifor iPakistan iin ithe iAsia iCup imatch iagainst iIndia. iThe charges iwere ilater idropped iwhen
ithe iPolice icame iunder imajor icriticism ifor itheir iactions iand major ipolitical iparties igot
iinvolved. iAnother ifamiliar iand ilaughably iironic iincident ithat ihit headlines iwas iwhen
ireputed, iBollywood iactor iand ifilmmaker, iAamir iKhan iwas icharged iwith sedition ifor ihis
icomments ion i“intolerance” iin ithe iCountry. iThe imost irecent iexample iof iwhat icanonly

76
ibe itermed ias ia imisuse iof ilegislation iis ithe iJanuary i2016 iincident iof ia iKerala iman
ibeing charged iwith isedition iover ia iderogatory iFacebook ipost ion iLt. iCol. iE iK iNiranjan,
iwho idied iin ithe terror iattack iat ithe iPathankot iAir iForce ibase. iAll ithe iafore-mentioned
iincidents ilack ithe ibasic ingredients iof iSedition imade iout iby ithe iCourts iof iIndia, ias
idiscussed iabove. iAt ibest, iwhat ithese incidents iseem ito ihave iin ico mmon iis iexpression
i– imade iwithin ithe iapparently isecure iconf ines iof a ifundamental ifreedom . 62
In irecent ijudgment iof iknown ijournalist iMr. iVinod iDua, iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia iheld
ithat i"Every Journalist iwill ibe ientitled ito iprotection iin iterms iof iKedar iNath iSingh
iJudgment, ias ievery prosecution iunder iSection i124A iand i505 iof ithe iIPC imust ibe istrict
iconformity iwith ithe iscope iand ambit iof isaid isections ias iexplained iin, iand icompletely iin
itune iwith ithe ilaw ilaid idown iin iKedar Nath iSingh. 63

Private iMember’s iBill iSuggesting iAmendment

iMr. iD. iRaja iintroduced ia iprivate imember iBill ititled ithe iIndian iPenal iCode
i(Amendment) iBill iin ithe iRajya iSabha iin i2011. iThe ibill iproposed ithat isection i124A iof
ithe iIndian iPenal iCode ibe irepealed. iIt iwas iargued ithat ithe iBritish igovernment iutilised
ithis irule ito istifle ifreedom iof iexpression.
Speech iand icriticism idirected iat ithe iBritish imonarchy. iHowever, iin iindependent iIndia,
ithe istatute iis istill iin iuse.
Despite ithe iexistence iof ispecialised ilegislation ito ideal iwith iinternal iand iexternal ithreats
ito ithe icountry's istability,nation. As ia iresult, ito iprevent ithe imisuse iof ithe isection iand ito
iencourage ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression,
The isection ishould ibe iomitted ibecause iit ilacks iexpression.

64
Another ibill, iThe iIndian iPenal iCode i(Amendment) iBill, i2015 , iwas iintroduced iby ia
iprivate imember.

62
Supra inote i51.
63
iVinod iDua ivs iUnion iof iIndia iLL i2021 iSC i266
64
The iIndian iPenal iCode i(Amendment) iBill, i2015(234 iof i2015) Soli J. Sorabjee, “Confusion about Sedition”
TheIndianExpress Aug.12,2012http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/confusion-about-sedition/987140 Sujata
Devi & Rajeev Kumar, “Evaluation of The Law of Sedition in India” WJJP 1-10 (2018).

77
Mr. iShashi iTharoor iintroduced ithe ibill iin ithe iLok iSabha. iamend isection i124A iIPC. iThe
iBill isuggested that ionly ithose iactions/words ithat idirectly iresult iin ithe iuse iof iviolence ior
iincitement ito iviolence should ibe itermed iseditious. iThis iproposed iamendment irevived ithe
idebate ion iinterpretation iof sedition. iThe icourts ithrough ivarious ijudgments ihave isettled
ithat ithe ilanguage iof ithis isection idoes not iimply ithat ionly iwords, ieither ispoken ior
iwritten, ior isigns, ior ivisible irepresentation ithat iare likely ito iincite iviolence ishould ibe
iconsidered iseditious.

78
 CHAPTER i8

CONCLUSION iAND iSUGGESTIONS

The irule iof isedition iin iIndia ihas igained icontroversial istatus iin irecent iyears, iowing ito
ichanges iinthe ipolitical ilandscape ias iwell ias ithe iconstitutional iprotection iof ifreedom iof
ispeech ias ia ibasicright. iOn ithe isurface, iSection i124A iappears ito ibe istraightforward iin
ithat iit iintends ito ipunish iany actions ithat ilead ito idisloyalty ito, ior ifeelings iof idisdain ior
ianimosity itoward, ithe igovernment.
The ilaw iof isedition ihas ibeen imarked iby iuncertainty iand inon-uniformity iin iits
iimplementation since iits iinception iin ithe iStar iChamber iin iEngland. iGenerations iof
imembers iof ithe iruling political iclass ihave iassured ithat ithey ihave ia itool ito irestrict iany
ispeech ithat igoes iagainst itheir interests iby ipurposely ileaving iits iscope iambiguous. iThe
ilaw iof isedition iwas ipassed idown ito India iby ithe iBritish. iThe iBritish ifirst ienacted ithis
irule iin iorder ito isilence iand isuppress iany isort iof opposition ito ithe igovernment. iIt iwas
iimposed iharshly iin iorder ito isecure ithe imonarchy's isurvival. Because ithere iwere iconstant
irebellions iand irevolutions iagainst itheir idictatorial irule, ia ilaw ilike this iwas ilong ioverdue
iand ihad ibecome iunavoidable. The icourts ihave ilikewise ibeen iunable ito iprovide ithe ilaw
iwith ia iclear idirection. iWhile iIndia's definitive iposition ion ithe ilaw iwas iestablished iin
i1960, ithe ilaw iof isedition iis iknown ifor iits erroneous iimplementation iand iuse ias ia itool
ifor iharassment. iBased ion ithe ipreceding idiscussion, iit is iclear ithat ithere iis ia ireal iand
iimmediate ineed ito ifind ia iproper ibalance ibetween ithe iopinions iof proponents iand
iopponents iof ithe isedition ilaw.
While ithe icase iagainst isedition ihas imerits, iit iis iinsufficient ito ioverrule ithe icase ifor
isedition. iIn such ia icontext, ithe iauthor iaims ito iprovide ia isolution ithat itakes iinto
iaccount iboth ithe isociological and iprecedential icomponents iof ithe ilaw iof isedition ias ia
iway iforward.
The imedia icoverage iand ipublic idebate isurrounding iIndia's isedition ilaws ihas ireignited
iinterest iin how ithese ilaws ihave ibeen iutilised ito irestrict ifree ispeech iin ithe icountry. iAs
iwe iall iknow, opposing iany isort iof inationalism iis ia isignificant iproblem, iand iit's ia

79
imatter iof ipublic imorality, just ilike ireligion. iA iliberal istate ishould inot ibe iin ithe ihabit
iof iforbidding ispeech isimply ibecause iit hurts ipeople's ifeelings, ias ia imatter iof ijustified
iand ilogical ilaw.
In ia imodern idemocratic istate ilike iIndia, ia icolonial irelic ilike isedition ilegislation, iwhich
iassumes public ifondness ifor ithe istate ias ia inatural icondition iand iexpects icitizens inot ito
idisplay iany antagonism, icontempt, ianger, ior ihostility itowards ithe igovernment iconstituted
iby ilaw, ihas ino place. iThe irationale ifor irepealing iIndia's isedition ilaw istems ifrom ithe
iinfluence iit ihas ion icitizens' capacity ito ifreely iexpress ithemselves ias iwell ias
iconstructively icriticise ior iexpress idiscontent against itheir igovernment. iIn ia idemocratic
isociety, ithe iexistence iof isedition ilaws iin iIndia's istatute books iand ithe iconsequent
icriminalization iof i"disaffection" iwith ithe istate iare iunacceptable. iThese regulations iare
iunmistakably icolonial irelics, ihaving itheir iorigins iin ithe icolonial igovernment's harsh
irepression iof inationalists ifighting ifor iIndian iindependence. iDespite ia iSupreme iCourt
ruling inarrowing iits iapplication, ithese ilaws iare istill ibeing iused ito iharass iand iintimidate
journalists, ihuman irights iactivists, ipolitical iactivists, iartists, iand ipublic iintellectuals,
demonstrating ithat ithe imere iexistence iof isedition ilaws ion ithe ibooks iis ia ithreat ito
idemocratic values.
Law iCommission iChairman iJustice iBalbir iSingh iChauhan iasserted ithat iSedition iLaw
ineeds reconsideration igiving ia iray iof ihope ifor ichange iin ithis ibarbaric ilaw. iThis iis ia
istart ibut ithere iis ia long iway ito igo. Without iliberty, idemocracy iis imeaningless, iand
isedition, ias idefined iand iadministered iby ithe police iand igovernments, iis ia idenial iof iit.
iHowever, ibefore ithe ilaw iloses iits isignificance, ithe Supreme iCourt, ias ithe iguardian iof
icitizens' ifundamental irights, imust iintervene iand iassess ithe law, iperhaps ideclaring iSection
i124A iillegal. iThe iterm i"sedition" ishould ibe iused iwith icare. iIt's like ihaving ia icannon
ithat ishouldn't ibe iused ito ishoot ia imouse, iyet ithe iarsenal irequires icannons ito be ikept ion
ihand, iusually ias ia ideterrent iand ioccasionally ifor ishooting. An iexamination iof ithe
iSupreme iCourt's idecision iin ithe iKedar iNath icase ireveals iseveral iflaws iin how ithe ilaw
iis icurrently iperceived. iThere ihas ibeen ia ishift iin iour iunderstanding iof i"state isecurity" as
ia ijustification ifor irestricting ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iWhile iit iis icritical ito
ihave ithe sedition iprohibitions, ithey imust ibe isubject ito ispecific istatutory isafeguards.
iAccording ito ithe researcher, isuch iredrafting iwould ibe ithe imost ieffective iway ito iaddress

80
ithe iproblem iproduced iby the imisuse iof isedition ilaws. iIt iis iassumed ithat ithe isuggested
iform's isection iwill isuffice ifor ithis purpose. I It iis iclear ithat ifreedom iof ispeech iand
iexpression iwithin ithe iIndian ilegal itradition iincludes iwithin its iambit iany iform iof
icriticism, idissent iand iprotest. iIt icannot ibe iheld ihostage ito inarrow iideas iof what
iconstitutes i“anti inational” ispeech. iThe imajor ireason iof ithe iconflict iarises ibecause iof
ithe meaning iand iscope iof is. i124-A iof iIPC iand ithe iguarantee iof ifreedom iof ispeech iin
ithe Constitution iof iIndia iand iabove iall ithe ipower iof ithe icourts iunder ithe iConstitution
ito iact ias ithe guarantors iand iprotectors iof iliberties. iSection i124-A iIPC iis ipartly ivoid
iand ipartly ivalid. iIn ithe sense ithat iS. i124-A iseeks ito iimpose irestrictions ion iexciting
imere idisaffection ior iattempting ito cause idisaffection iis iultra ivires, ibut ithe irestriction
iimposed ion ithe iright iof ifree-speech iwhich makes iit ipunishable ito iexcite ihatred ior
icontempt itowards ithe iGovernment iestablished iby ilaw iin India, iis icovered iby iclause i(2)
iof iArt.19 iof ithe iConstitution iof iIndia iand ican ibe iheld iintra ivires by ithe icourt.
Since iits iinception iin iIndian iPenal iCode ithe ilaw iof iSedition ihas ibeen iremained ithe
isubject iof controversy. iIt ihas ibeen isaid ithe ilanguage iused iin iSection i124A iof IPC iis
ivague iand icapable iof interpreting iby iruling ipolitical iparty ias ia itool ito isuppress ithe
ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression that igoes iagainst ithem. iBeside ithat ithe ifinal iposition
iof ithe ilaw iwas isettled iby ithe iSupreme iCourt in iKedar iNath icase iin i1960, iyet irecent
itrend iregarding ithe iapplicability iof isedition ilaws ishow that iadministrative iauthorities iand
iCourts ihave idifference iof iopinion iand imisunderstands ithe correct iapplication iof isedition
ilaws. The ineed iof ithe ihour iis ifor isedition ilaws ito ibe iread iand iapplied iin iaccordance
iwith ithe iSupreme Court's irecommendations. iIt ihas ibecome imore iessential isince ithe
iinception iof ithe iIndian Constitution, ias iArticle i19(1)(a) iguarantees ipeople' ifreedom iof
ispeech iand iexpression ias ia ibasic right, iwhich ican ionly ibe ilimited ion ithe igrounds iset
iforth iin iArticle i19(1)(a) i(2). iIntegrity iof India, iState iSecurity, iand iPublic iOrder iare ithe
icomponents ispecified iin iArticle i19 i(2) ithat iare related ito ithe ioffence iof isedition. iAs ia
iresult, isedition ilaws imust iinclude iexplicit ilanguage ithat satisfies ithe iconstraints iof
iArticle i19. i(2). Law iCommission iof iIndia ihas ialso ipointed iout iin iits i42nd ireport ion
iIndian iPenal iCode ithat ithe definition iof isedition idoes inot iexpressly iprovide idisaffection
itowards i(a) iConstitution i(b) ithe Legislature i(c) iadministration iof iJustice. iAccordingly
isuggested ifor ithe iamendment iin iSection 124A iin ithe ifollowing iwords:- i“Whoever iby

81
iwords, ieither ispoken ior iwritten, iby isigns, ior iby visible irepresentation, ior iotherwise,
iexcites, ior iattempts ito iexcite, idisaffection itowards ithe Constitution ior ithe iGovernment,
ior ithe iParliament iof iIndia, ior ithe iGovernment, ior ithe Legislature iof iany iState, ior ithe
iadministration iof ijustice, ias iestablished iby ilaw, iintending ior knowing iit ito ibe ilikely
ithereby ito iendanger ithe iintegrity ior isecurity iof iIndia, ior iany iState, ior ito cause ipublic
idisorder, ishall ibe ipunished iwith irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich imay extend ito
iseven iyears, iand ishall ibe iliable ito ifine.
After imore ithan ia icentury, itoday, iin ia idemocratic icountry iwhere ithe igovernment iis
ichosen iby ithecitizens iof ithe icountry ithrough ithe iprocess iof ielecting itheir irepresentatives
iinto isuch ipositions iof power, iit iseems iunnecessary ito ihave ilaws iwhich icontinue ito
ioppress ifree ispeech iand iexpression.
Sedition ilaw iin iIndia iis itheoretically ia isound ione iand iit icommands istrict iinterpretation
ito iensure it’s inot imisused. iThis iwas iobserved iin ithe iFederal iCourt ijudgment iof
iNiharendu iDutt iMajumdar . iKing iEmperor, iwherein ithe icourt iemphasized ithat
iincitement ito icreate ipublic idisorder iis ian essential iingredient iof isedition. iSimilar
ireasoning iwas icarried iforward iafter iindependence iby ithe Supreme iCourt iin ithe ilandmark
ijudgment iof iKedar iNath iSingh iv. iState iof iBihar, iupholding ithe constitutional ivalidity
iof iSection i124A, iit ilaid idown ithe ibasic iguidelines ifor iinterpretation iof ithe section iin
iorder ito iensure ithat ithis ioffence idoes inot icurtail ithe icitizen’s iright ito ifree ispeech iand
expression. iThese iprinciples iwere ifurther iemphasized iupon iand ielaborated iby ithe
iSupreme iCourt in ivarious ifollowing ijudgments. iBut ithis ilaw ibecomes ian iissue iwhen
isuch iguidelines iare inot followed iby ithe ilower icourts iand ithe iinvestigating iagencies,
ithereby ileading ito ithe iconflict between ifree ispeech iand isedition. There iare iprocedural
iguidelines ilaid idown iin ithese ijudgments iand ithe iCrPC ito iensure ithat ithe gravity iof ithis
ioffence iis iunderstood ibut iin ithe iacts iof imisuse iby ithe ilower icourts iand ithe ipolice,
ithese isafeguards iare itotally idisregarded. iA iresult iof ithis iblatant iignorance iis ithe
ihardships ithe iaccused, irather ithe ivictims iof ithis iwrongful iprosecution ihave ito iface iin
ithese isituations. iNot ionly ido ithey ihave ito iconfront ithe ipainful iand iscaring iexperience
iof igoing ito ijail iwhile ithe itrial continues ibut ithey ialso ihave ito iincur ivarious ilegal icosts
iand itake iexpensive imeasures ito iprove itheir iinnocence iin ithese ilower icourts. iSuch
iarbitrariness iand ipower ithat ithe ipolice iand ilower icourts iexercise, iwhich imay ieven iat

82
itimes ibe ibacked iby ipolitical iagendas, icreates ifear iamong ithe icitizens ito iraise itheir
ivoice iagainst ithe iacts ior ipolicies iof ithe igovernment. iThis iis iwhere ithis iarchaic ilaw
ibecomes iexcessive iin iits iapplication iand ileads ito icurtailment iof ifree ispeech iand
iexpression. iIn i2014, ia ireport iby ithe iNational iCrimes iRecord iBureau istated ithat ithere
ihave ibeen i47 icases iof iSedition ireported iand i58 ipersons iwere iarrested, iwith imaximum
ifrom ithe istate iof iBihar iand iJharkhand, ibut ithe inumbers iof iconvictions iwere ionly ione.
The iSedition iLaw iwill ibe irevisited iby ithe i21st iLaw iCommission iof iIndia, iwhich iwill
ibe iled iby iretired iJustice iBalbir iSingh iChauhan. i“We ishould igive iit i(Sedition istatute) ia
inew ilook,” iJustice iChauhan isaid. iThe iIndian iPenal iCode iwas idrafted iabout i150 iyears
iago, iwith ia idifferent iobjective iin imind iby ithe iBritish iauthorities. iIt's ipast itime ifor ius
ito iconsider iwhether ithe ilaw istill iapplies itoday.” iThe iSupreme iCourt ijudgments iand
iguidelines imust ibe ireflected iin ithe ilaw iof isedition and ienforced iwith iprovisions ito
ipunish ithose iwho iabuse iit, iin iorder ito iensure ithat ithe ilaw iof sedition iis iused ifor iits
iintended ipurpose irather ithan ito iinstil ifear iin icitizens iand ibe iused ias ian oppressive itool
iby ithe iso-called i"democratic" istate. Repealing iSedition ilaws iwill iopen ia iPandora ibox
iresulting iin inumerous iuncertainties. iThe authors iof ithe ipresent ipaper iconcur ito ithe ifact
ithat ialthough ithere imay ibe imisuse iof ithe iright ito ifreedom iof ispeech iat itimes iby ithe
iactive icitizenry, ihowever, iit icannot ibe idenied ithat igovernment iinstitutions ialso igo
ibeyond ithe ijurisdiction iof ithe iprescribed iapplication iof ilaws. iHowever, ithis idoes inot
iwarrant ian iaction iof itotal irevocation iof ithe ilaws. iIn ipursuance iof ithe i“Doctrine iof
iSeverability”, isevering ithe iunconstitutional ipart ithrough ieffective iimplementation iby
imeans iof ia imechanism iof iscreening ior isanctions, iwhereby, ithe ialleged iseditious icontent
ishould iconform ito icertain ispecific iparameters iwhich iwould ifurther iact ias ia itool ito
ipreclude ithe iarbitrary iapplication iof ithis ivague ilaw iof iSedition.

83
 ANALYSIS OF RECENT JUDGEMENT

After the recent judgement of Supreme Court of India, Justice N.V. Ramana CJI Surya Kant; J
Hima Kohli; J of dated May 11 2022 I came to conclusion that there should be a re- examination
of this constitutional provision right to speech regarding sedition section- 124A.
In this order it is passed that there will be a interim stay and according to 8b of the para. In the
judgement which state that “ we hope and expect that the State and Central Government will
restrain from registering any F.I.R , continuing any investigation for taking any coercive
measures by invoking sec 124 A of ipc while the aforesaid provision of law is under
consideration” also in 8 C it has been stated that “ if any fresh case is registerd U/s 124A of ipc ,
the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned courts for appropriate relief. The
couts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passé as
well as the clear stand taken by union of India.

84
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1. The Constitution of India

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 2015
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000
5. Prevention of insults to National Honour Act, 1971
6. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
7. Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911
8. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
9. The Advocates Act, 1961
10. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
11. International covenant on Civil and political Rights, 1966
12. European Convention on Human Rights
13. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1969
14. American Convention on Human Rights, 1978
15. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1987

SECONDARY SOURCES

Books:
1. Dr. Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, vol. 2(Law Publishers (India), Allahabad,
11th edn., 2011).
2. K.I. Vibhute, P.S.A. Pillai’s Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Nagpur, 2012).
3. K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing, 5th
edn.,2015).

85
4. Ratanlal Ranchhoddas and Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The
Indian Penal Code, (Lexis Nexis, Haryana, 35th edn., 2017).
5. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 52nd
edn.,2015).
6. M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, 12th edn.,2013).
7. Arvind Ganachari, Nationalism and Social Reform in a Colonial Situation ( Kalpaz,
New Delhi, 2005).
8. S.N. Mishra, The Code of Criminal Procedure (Central Law Publications, Allahabad,
2006)

Journals:
1. Sougata Talukdar and Rakesh Mondal, “Law of Sedition: An Agent of Colonialism:
A Critique” 3 IJL 21-26 (2017).
2. R. K. Misra, “Freedom of Speech and the Law of Sedition in India” 8 JILI 117-131
(1966).
3. Nivedita Saxena & Siddhartha Srivastava, “An Analysis of the Modern Offence of
Sedition” 7 NUJS 120-147 (2014)
4. Ytharth Kumar & Sreyoshi Guha, “Sedition: Crucifixion of Free Speech and
Expression?” 2 LSJ109-120 (2017).
5. Joydip Ghoshal, “An Analysis of Law of Sedition and Its Impact on Freedom of
Expression”1 JLAR 32-46 (2014).
6. Sujata Devi & Rajeev Kumar, “Evaluation of the Law of Sedition in India” WJJP 1-
10 (2018).
7. Mahima Makhijaand and Asha Sundaram, “The Sedition Laws in India with Special
8. Reference to ShreyaSinghal vs. Union of India” 119 IJPAM 111-126 (2018).
9. Dr. Akashdeep Singh, “Law of Sedition and Constitutional Rights in India: A
Critique” 1IJRCS 56-64 (2017)
10. Suvir Raghuvansh, “Sedition Law in India” 4 IJLLJS 174-184 (2017)
11. Akhil Kamra & Garvita Sethi, “Sedition Law - Love Thy Government?” 2 IJLDAI 1-
18 (2016)Justice (Retd.) A. P. Shah, “Free Speech, Nationalism & Sedition” 1 IJCAL

86
 53-68 (2017)+Caesar Roy, “Law of Sedition in India – A Critical Analysis” 16
NYAYA DEEP 49-67 (2015)
12. Anand Teltumbde, “Yet Another Binayak Sen” 46 EPW (2011)
13. S. Narrain, “Disaffection and the Law: The Chilling Effect of Sedition Laws in India”
46 EPW33-37(2011)
14. Amal Clooney & Philippa Webb, “The Right to Insult in International Law” 1
CHRLR48.2(2017)
15. Jyoti Punwani, “The Trial of Binayak Sen” 45 EPW (2010)

Articles/Essays/Newspapers

1. W.R. Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British
India,(Thakker, Spink and Company, Calcutta, 1911).
2. R. B. Tewari, “Law of Sedition in India” in K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, Shabistan
Aquil,
3. Essays on the Indian Penal Code (Indian Law Institute, 2008).
4. Dr. M N Buch, “Freedom of Speech and Archaic Law on Sedition”, Vivekananda
International Foundation, Sep. 17, 2012
5. “India: Crackdown on freedom of expression must end” Amnesty International, Feb.
17, 2016
6. “Stifling Dissent”, Human Rights Watch, May 24, 2016
7. “Sedition law needs relook, says Law panel chief” Indian Express, Mar. 22, 2016
8. Sukanya Shetty, “40 months on, court acquits ‘Naxal activist’ Sudhir Dhawale”,
Indian Express, May 23, 2014 J Venkatesan, “Binayak Sen gets bail in Supreme
Court”, The Hindu, 16 April 2011 Priscilla Jebaraj, “Binayak Sen among Six People
Charged With Sedition in 2010” The Hindu, Jan. 1, 2011 Rudiger Wolfrum, “The
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” Max Planck Institute for
Comparative Public Law and International Law 3 (1999)
9. Gautam Bhatia, “What is Sedition? – I: The Kedar Nath Singh Case” Indian
Constitutional Law and Philosophy (Wordpress) Aug. 12, 2013 “Between Two Sets

87
 of Guns” Human Rights Watch, July 2012 Soli J. Sorabjee, “Confusion about
Sedition” The Indian Express, Aug. 12, 2012

Internet Sources:
1. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/898/Sedition-Law-&-Freedom-of-
Expression.html
2. https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/criminal-law/sedition-an-offence-against-the-state-
2346
3. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/Sedition-versus-free-
speech/article13673138.ece
4. www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/CP-on-Sedition.pdf
5. http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/37E592F0-BE2A-475F-AF99-
2F6909F3CF11.pdf
6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952895?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43949872?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
8. https://thewire.in/books/abhinav-chandrachud-republic-of-rhetoric-free-speech
9. http://www.lawjournals.org/download/110/3-2-30-950.pdf
10. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37182206#
11. https://www.vifindia.org/article/2012/september/17/freedom-of-speech-and-archaic-
law-onsedition
12. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition
13. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sedition
14. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/india-crackdown-on-freedom-of-
expressionmust-end/
15. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/24/stifling-dissent/criminalization-peaceful-
expressionindia(Last)
16. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sedition-law-needs-relook-
law-panelchief/
17. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf%23page=9
18. http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/#a9

88
19. https://www.oas.org/dil/access_to_information_American_Convention_on_Human_R
ights.pdf
20. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/india0712ForUpload.pdf

89