Criminal Law Treatment Of Sedition During Mass Protests
1. Legal Framework: Sedition in India
Definition
Sedition in India is defined under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
Section 124A IPC: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished…”
Key Legal Points
Sedition requires intention or tendency to incite public disorder or rebellion against the state.
Mere criticism of government policies or officials is not sedition.
Section 124A is cognizable, non-bailable, and punishable by up to life imprisonment.
Other Related Sections
Section 153A IPC: Promoting enmity between groups.
Section 505 IPC: Statements causing fear or alarm.
Public Safety Acts and CrPC provisions: Often invoked during mass protests.
Supreme Court Landmark Clarification:
Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but clarified that only activities involving incitement to violence or public disorder constitute sedition. Mere criticism is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. Landmark Cases: Sedition During Mass Protests
Case 1: Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts:
Accused distributed pamphlets criticizing government policies and encouraging civil disobedience.
Arrested for sedition under Section 124A IPC.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court upheld Section 124A as constitutional but limited its scope to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
Mere criticism of government, even if harsh, does not constitute sedition.
Key Takeaways:
Established the constitutional limits of sedition law.
Protected freedom of speech unless there is incitement to violence.
Case 2: Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995)
Facts:
During mass protests in Punjab, pamphlets calling for civil unrest were circulated. Arrests were made under Section 124A.
Court Decision:
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that seditious acts must have a clear tendency to incite violence.
Mere participation in a protest or expressing dissent cannot automatically be sedition.
Key Takeaways:
Clarified distinction between protest and sedition.
Emphasized requirement of public disorder or incitement to overthrow government.
Case 3: Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam (2011)
Facts:
Journalists and activists arrested during mass anti-government protests in Assam for sedition charges due to speeches and writings.
Court Decision:
Gauhati High Court quashed sedition charges against peaceful activists.
Held that criticizing government policies, even during protests, is not sedition unless it incites violence.
Key Takeaways:
Peaceful protests are constitutionally protected.
Sedition charges should not be used to silence dissent.
Case 4: Kanhaiya Kumar vs. State (Delhi High Court, 2016)
Facts:
Student leader Kanhaiya Kumar arrested for allegedly raising slogans against the government during protests at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Court Decision:
Delhi High Court granted interim bail.
Observed that mere slogans or speeches are not sedition unless directly inciting violence.
Noted that sedition is a rarely applicable provision and should be cautiously invoked.
Key Takeaways:
Reinforced Supreme Court principle of limiting Section 124A to incitement of violence.
Highlighted potential misuse of sedition in politically sensitive protests.
Case 5: Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950) (Indirectly related)
Facts:
While predating sedition cases during mass protests, this case involved freedom of press and expression in criticizing government.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court held that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and restrictions must be reasonable and justified.
Key Takeaways:
Laid groundwork for constitutional interpretation of Section 124A.
Important in cases of mass protests where speech or expression is part of dissent.
Case 6: Teesta Setalvad vs. Union of India (2014, Gujarat High Court)
Facts:
Activists organizing mass protests against government policies faced sedition complaints.
Court Decision:
Gujarat High Court quashed sedition FIRs, noting that organizing protests to express dissent does not amount to sedition unless violence is incited.
Key Takeaways:
Reaffirmed limitation of Section 124A in peaceful protests.
Courts are protecting democratic space for dissent and criticism.
3. Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case Reference | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Sedition requires incitement to violence | Kedar Nath Singh (1962) | Criticism alone is not sedition. |
| Peaceful protest ≠ sedition | Arup Bhuyan (2011), Teesta Setalvad (2014) | Courts protect lawful dissent. |
| Rarely invoked provision | Kanhaiya Kumar (2016) | Sedition should be used cautiously. |
| Distinction between speech & public disorder | Balwant Singh (1995) | Need evidence of public disorder tendency. |
| Freedom of expression | Romesh Thappar (1950) | Criticism of government is constitutionally protected. |
4. Observations on Criminal Law Treatment During Mass Protests
Restrictive Application:
Sedition is applied only when speech or action incites violence or public disorder, not for criticism or dissent.
Judicial Oversight:
Courts often quash FIRs or grant bail in cases of peaceful protest.
Potential for Misuse:
Sedition is sometimes invoked to suppress dissent, but courts emphasize constitutional limits.
Complementary Provisions:
Sections 153A and 505 IPC often invoked alongside 124A when protests have potential to create communal tension or public fear.
Balance Between Order and Rights:
Courts aim to balance state interest in maintaining order with citizens’ right to free expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
Conclusion:
The treatment of sedition during mass protests in India reflects a judicially tempered approach: sedition applies only when there is clear incitement to violence or public disorder. Peaceful dissent, criticism, and protest are constitutionally protected. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that Section 124A is a narrow provision and should not be used to curb democratic expression.
RELATED Blog
comments