Sedition

Concept of Sedition
 Based on following premise:
“Every state, whatever its form of government, has to be
empowered to punish
a. conduct jeopardizing safety & stability of State or
b. Dissemination of feelings of disloyalty likely to cause
disruption of State or public disorder”

 India: S. 124A has been placed in IPC to make

sedition a punishable offence.
 Meaning of Sedition
 Literal meaning: 'actions or speech inciting rebellion‘

 Sedition: libel of the established authority of law

Hence it is called seditious libel in England.

 Kenny: Law of sedition relates to

a) Uttering of seditious words,

b) Publication of seditious libels

c) Conspiracy+act in furtherance of seditious intention

 Ingredients of Sedition u/s. 124 A
 Bringing/attempting to bring into hatred or
contempt, or exciting/attempting to excite
disaffection towards Government of India

 Such act or attempt may be done by

 Words, either spoken or written
 By signs
 By visible representation

 Hence: Essence of sedition is intention with which the

language of a speech is used.

Note: Intention is judged primarily from language itself

 Sedition: History…
 S.113, Draft Penal Code,1839 similar to S.124A

 Note: Originally prov. was omitted from IPC 1860

 JamesFitzjames Stephens, architect of Indian

Evidence Act stated omission was result of a mistake

 S.124A:Introduced by Colonial Govt(1870) when

need felt for specific prov. to deal with anti-British
expressions
 …..Sedition: History
 Framework of s.124A imported mainly from
following sources:
◦ UK Treason Felony Act
◦ Common law of seditious libel

 Till date it is considered as a draconian law. Why?

 M. Gandhi: “prince among political sections of the IPC

designed to suppress liberty of the citizen”
Sedition distinguished from Treason

Sedition: Stirring up rebellion against government

Treason: Violation of allegiance to sovereign and has
to do with giving aid to enemies etc

Sedition: More about encouraging people to rebel

Treason: Actually betraying the country.
Pre-Independence Landmark Cases…
Jogendra Chandra Bose Case 1891(Editor of Bangobasi)
Bose criticized Age of Consent Bill for posing threat
to religion and its coercive effects

Comment on negative economic impact of colonialism

Bose accused of exceeding limits of legitimate criticism,

and inciting religious feelings

Judgerejected defense that there was no mention

of rebellion (Note: proceedings dropped after apology)
Annie Besant v. Adv. General of Madras
Attack was levelled against UK bureaucracy - Case dealt
with S.4(1),Indian Press Act, 1910-similar to S.124A.

“any press used for printing/publishing newspapers, books etc

containing words, signs or other visible representations that
had a tendency to provoke hatred/contempt to His Majesty’s
govt. ...or any class of subjects (either directly/indirectly, by way
of inference etc) would be liable to have its deposit forfeited”

Privy Council followed interpretation of J. Strachey and

confiscated the deposit of Annie Besant’s printing press.
 Mahatma Gandhi Case 1922
Facts: Gandhi charged, along with Shankerlal Banker
(proprietor of Young India) - 3 articles published
Interesting trivia
 Gandhi explained why from being a staunch royalist, he
became a non-cooperator
 Gandhi explained why it was his moral duty to disobey
the law
 Stated sedition is ideal to colonial regime based on
strict control over any criticism of the regime
 Demanded he be given maximum punishment
 J. Strangman, in a remarkably respectful response,
acknowledges Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence
but expresses his inability to not hold him guilty of
sedition under the law, and sentences him to six years
imprisonment
 Conflict in Interpretation
FEDERAL COURT v. PRIVY COUNCIL
Origin of legal definition and scope of sedition can
be traced to colonial period

Difference in opinion between Federal Court in

India and Privy Council in Britain

Note: Privy Council is the highest court of appeal

for Commonwealth countries

Niharendu Dutt Majumdar case & Sadashiv case

Federal Court: Niharendu Dutt Majumdar case

In defining sedition, the Federal Court held;

“the acts or words complained of must

a) either incite to disorder or
b) must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that
that is their intention or tendency.”

Hence: Violent words alone do not suffice, element

of incitement of violence should coexist
 Privy Council: Sadashiv case
Overruled Federal Court’s decision
Reaffirmed view expressed in Tilak’s case

“the offence consisted in exciting or attempting to

excite in others certain bad feelings towards the
Government and not in exciting or attempting to
excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of actual
disturbance, great or small.”

Thus, according to Privy Council, incitement to

violence was not a necessary ingredient of sedition.
 Post Independence Landmark Cases

 Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State 1951

 Ram Nandan’s Case,1954

 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962SC 955

Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State 1951
 Facts: Accused made certain speeches in 1950 at
Shahabad and Ludhiana-charged with sedition

 Issue: Constitutionality of S.124A raised

 Decision: S. 124A ultra vires the constitution.

 Note: To avert constitutional difficulty, Constitution

First Amendment Act, 1951 added in Art. 19(2)
additions to reasonable restriction clause, namely;
'in the interest of' and 'public order'
 Ram Nandan’s Case,1954

 Constitutionality of s.124A of IPC challenged in

Allahabad HC

 Challenge to a conviction for inflammatory speech

 Conviction overturned by declaring s.124A

unconstitutional
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962SC 955
Facts: Accused, member of Forward Communist
Party – made harsh speech against government -
violent language in the speech subject to scrutiny

Decision:
S.124A should criminalize only those expressions
that had intention/tendency to incite public
disorder or violence.
 Therefore S. 124A was held to be constitutional.
The restrictions imposed on freedom of speech
could be said to be in the interest of public order.
 …….Kedar Nath Singh case

 Dist. bet. ‘Govt. established

by law’ and ‘persons
time being engaged in carrying on Administration’

 Dist. bet. ‘disloyalty

to Govt’. and ‘commenting on
measures of govt. without inciting public disorder’

Effect: SC Overruled decision in Ram Nandan Case

Alternate Law: Prevention of Insults to
National Honour Act, 1971
 Objective: Prevent insults to national honour inc.
National flag, Constitution,Anthem

 S.2 – burning, mutilating, destroying national flag in

public place amounts to an offence.

 S. 3 – prevention of singing of national anthem or

causing disturbance in any assembly engaged in such
singing is punishable

Note: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala AIR 1987

SC 748) (Jehovah’s Witness case)
Pre-Independence Landmark Cases…
Bal Gangadhar Tilak Case
 three sedition trials of Bal Gangadhar Tilak
 The fundamental moral question that Tilak raised
was whether his trials constituted sedition of the
people against the British Indian government
(Rajdroha) or of the Government against the Indian
people (Deshdroha)
Conflicting judicial approach
Queen v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (early
interpretation)
The offence does not consist in exciting or
attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any
sort of actual disturbance, great or small.
Whether any outbreak was caused by the
publication of seditious articles is
absolutely immaterial. If the accused tried to
excite feelings of hatred or contempt towards
the govt., that is sufficient to make him guilty
under this section.