Sedition Under Section 124A Ipc And Its Constitutional Validity
Sedition under Section 124A IPC: Text and Meaning
Section 124A IPC reads:
“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, 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 with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to fine, or both.”
Key elements:
Acts must bring or attempt to bring hatred or contempt or
Excite disaffection towards the government.
The government referred to is the lawful government established by the Constitution.
The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
Historical Context
Section 124A was introduced by the British colonial government in 1870 to suppress dissent during the independence movement.
Intended to curb speech that incited violence or rebellion against colonial rule.
Constitutional Validity: Conflict with Freedom of Speech
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on grounds including public order.
The constitutional question: Is Section 124A a reasonable restriction or an unconstitutional infringement on free speech?
Key Judicial Pronouncements on Section 124A IPC
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
Facts: Kedar Nath Singh was convicted for speeches allegedly inciting hatred against the government.
Ruling & Significance:
The Supreme Court upheld Section 124A’s constitutionality with important qualifications.
It ruled that only speech that involves incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder falls within sedition.
Mere criticism of the government, however strong, is not sedition.
The Court narrowed the scope, protecting free speech while maintaining state security.
This case remains the leading authority on sedition law in India.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785
Facts: Conviction under Section 124A for speech allegedly inciting hatred.
Ruling & Significance:
The Court reaffirmed Kedar Nath Singh, emphasizing that sedition must involve incitement to violence or public disorder.
Mere expression of disapproval or criticism, even harsh, is protected speech.
This case underscored the need to distinguish seditious speech from unpopular opinions.
3. Bhagat Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1931 PC 237
Facts: British-era case involving Bhagat Singh, charged with sedition for revolutionary acts and writings.
Ruling & Significance:
The Privy Council upheld the conviction, reflecting colonial-era strictness.
This case is historically significant but largely overruled in spirit by post-independence judgments like Kedar Nath Singh.
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which was used to curb online speech similar to sedition.
Ruling & Significance:
Though about a different statute, the Court emphasized protection of free speech on the internet and struck down vague provisions curbing speech.
Influential in modern debates about sedition and online expression.
5. Jungli Adalat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 SC 731
Facts: Concerned the application of sedition charges in rural unrest.
Ruling & Significance:
The Court held that charges of sedition require clear evidence of incitement to violence or public disorder, reinforcing the Kedar Nath Singh principle.
6. Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 549
Facts: The petitioner was charged under sedition for publishing seditious material.
Ruling & Significance:
The Court underscored the need for a clear nexus between speech and violence or public disorder.
Mere advocacy of political change does not amount to sedition.
Contemporary Debates and Challenges
Sedition has been criticized for misuse against political dissenters, journalists, and activists.
Several courts and legal experts have called for repeal or reform due to potential chilling effects on free speech.
Some petitions have been filed challenging Section 124A’s constitutionality, but it remains law for now.
Summary Table: Sedition and Free Speech Balancing
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Scope of Section 124A | Targets speech inciting violence or public disorder |
| Constitutional test | Reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) |
| Not covered | Mere criticism, advocacy of change by lawful means |
| Judicial safeguards | Narrow interpretation limiting sedition to violent incitement |
| Contemporary issues | Alleged misuse, calls for repeal, digital age challenges |
Conclusion
Section 124A IPC remains constitutionally valid as per Supreme Court rulings but with a narrow interpretation limiting sedition to incitement to violence or public disorder.
Courts have consistently protected free speech from sedition charges when speech is critical but non-violent.
The debate over sedition reflects broader tensions between state security and individual freedoms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments