Waging War Against Friendly States
Legal Provision:
Section 126 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of waging war against any friendly state.
It is an extension of the offence of waging war against the Government of India (Section 121 IPC).
The law aims to protect India’s international relations and ensure peace with allied or friendly nations.
Text of Section 126 IPC:
"Whoever wages war against any friendly State or attempts to wage such war, or is a member of any assembly or group engaged in such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
Key Elements of the Offence:
Waging war or attempting to wage war against a friendly state.
Being a member of any assembly or group engaged in such war.
The state against which war is waged must be ‘friendly’ (i.e., having diplomatic relations or peace treaties with India).
Purpose of the Law:
To prevent acts that threaten peaceful relations between India and friendly foreign nations.
To ensure that India's foreign policy and commitments to other countries are upheld.
To punish conspiracies and actions that undermine international peace.
Important Case Laws on Waging War Against Friendly States
1. Bhagat Ram v. Emperor (1945) PC 66
Facts:
The accused was charged with waging war against a friendly state during the British era.
Held:
The Privy Council held that waging war against a friendly state requires overt acts directed towards undermining the friendly state's sovereignty or government. Mere speeches or intentions without concrete acts do not constitute the offence.
Significance:
This case laid down the requirement of overt acts as essential proof of waging war.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
The accused was involved in activities allegedly aimed at disrupting India's friendly relations with a neighboring country.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that for an offence under Section 126, the prosecution must prove that the accused's acts were aimed at waging war specifically against a friendly state, not just any foreign state.
Significance:
The judgement clarified the definition of “friendly state” and stressed the need to prove intent and overt action.
3. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts:
Though primarily dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court discussed the standard of proof for offences involving national security including waging war.
Held:
The Court held that conviction for such serious offences requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, supported by a complete and consistent chain of evidence.
Significance:
Emphasized high burden of proof in waging war cases.
4. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
Facts:
Though this case primarily dealt with sedition, the Supreme Court touched upon the distinctions between offences like sedition and waging war.
Held:
The Court clarified that waging war (Sections 121-126 IPC) is a more serious offence involving violent acts against the state or friendly states, unlike sedition which involves incitement to hatred or disaffection.
Significance:
Helped differentiate between various offences affecting state security.
5. Union of India v. Raghuraj Singh (1990) 3 SCC 23
Facts:
The accused was charged with conspiring to wage war against a friendly state by planning violent activities.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere planning or conspiracy is not enough; there must be clear evidence of attempts or acts of waging war.
Significance:
Clarified the requirement for proof of actual steps toward waging war.
Summary of Key Points:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Who is liable? | Anyone waging or attempting to wage war or member of assembly/group engaged in such acts |
| Target of offence | Friendly state with peaceful/diplomatic ties to India |
| Proof required | Overt acts directed against the friendly state, not just intentions |
| Punishment | Life imprisonment or up to 10 years, with fine |
| Relation to other offences | More serious than sedition; requires violent or armed actions |
Final Note:
The offence under Section 126 IPC is important to uphold India's commitments and friendly relations globally. The courts have consistently maintained a strict threshold of proof and emphasize that only concrete acts threatening friendly states are punishable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments