Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
It is a brief analysis of kedar nath singh judgment. The judgment is an integral part of IPC- dealing with sedition laws and concept of instigation.
Typology: Thesis
Uploaded on 03/30/2023
1 document
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
th
CASES:
*Fear or alarm public to commit offence against state or public tranquility, or with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any community or class to commit an offence against the other class or community shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six years or fine or both also if statement promotes or is likely to promote hatred ill will or enmity on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, cast or community or any other ground shall be punished with imprisonment of which may extend to three years or fine or with both Sub-section 3 of this section 505 of this section states if offence under sub-section 2 is committed in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in performing religious ceremony shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 5 years or fine. Explanation is added to this section states if statement, rumor or report has grounds to believe it and is published in good faith then it is not crime under this section. Article19(1)(a) states that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” Under this article every Indian citizen has right to express one's view and opinions at any issue by any medium be it by words of mouth, printing, film etc. Article19(2): This article imposes "reasonable restrictions” on article19(1)(a) of constitution. These restrictions can be imposed by government in interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
In Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar, Supreme court for the first time from standpoint of article 19 (1)(a) and article 19(2) of Indian Constitution was confronted with a challenge to the vires of section124A of 505 of IPC. Here, the question before court was regarding the constitutional validity of section 124A (sedition) and 505 (statement conducing to public mischief), with reference to the maintenance of state security and public order. Fitzgerald J. in Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan^1 defines sedition, as a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason but if frequently precedes treason by short interval and embraces (^1) Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan(1867-71)11 Cox's Criminal Law Cases, 44 at p. 45
all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquilly of the state and lead ignorant person to endeavor to subvert the government and the laws of the empire. Court in this case had to encounter with two directly conflicting interpretations of section 124 A, one by Federal court^2 and other by Privy Council^3. Court upheld the interpretation by Federal court valid as this interpretation makes Sec124 A, fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions imposed by legislature on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2). The issue of sedition is recently being in highlights, due to the continuous activities going on in the country which is somehow being linked to the offence of sedition. There is strong demand from the past to curb this law as it is supposed to be a law from colonial period which is not relevant to the present condition of the country.
In this case, Kedarnath Singh (member of forward communist party,Bihar) had been brought to court for making a rather intemperate speech in which he used wrong words for the party, he used the word dogs for C.I.D. officers and used the word goondas for the Indian National Congress party, he went on saying that he believe in revolution, which will come and in the flames of which the capitalists, zamindars and the Congress leaders of India, who have made it their profession to loot the country, will be reduced to ashes and on their ashes will be established a Government of the poor and the downtrodden people of India On the basis of these words used in speech, case was filed against him under section 124-A and section 505(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year. The convicted persons filed an appeal to the Patna High Court where the court upheld the convictions and the sentence and dismissed the appeal on the ground that: (^2) Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King(1942), F.C.R 38 (^3) King Emperor v. Sadashiv NarayanvBhalerao I.L.R.(1947) IndAp 89,
restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech and expression, such as, in order to maintain security of the State and public order. The court observed that feelings of disloyalty towards government can have the tendency to create public disorder by use of violence and thus, section 124 (a) penalizes any spoken or written words which convey the idea of subverting the government through violent means. In Niharendu Datt Majumdar vs. The King Emperor’s case^4 , the Federal Court had taken the view that gist of the offence of sedition is incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder. On the other hand, the Privy Council had not deemed intention or tendency of the words to be an essential ingredient of the offence of sedition. It was held that if offence of sedition is complete even without a tendency to disorder or create disturbances of law and order because such words merely create disaffection or feelings of enmity against the Government, then it would be unconstitutional in lieu of Article 19. The court declared that a citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the government or government measures as long as he is not inciting violence against the government or trying to create public order. Criticism against government, no matter how strongly worded, is outside the scope of Section 124 (a ) and it is not equivalent to disloyalty towards government. Intention or tendency to cause public disorder or disturbance to state’s security is essential element of offence of sedition. It is a well settled fact that the courts have to lean in favor of the interpretation which makes it consistent with the Constitution. They cannot rely solely on literal words used in a section but instead the history of legislation, its purpose and need has to also be taken into account. This interpretation of offence of sedition strikes a balance between fundamental rights of the citizens and powers of the State. It does not encroach upon a citizen’s right unreasonably and is saved by Article 19 (2). In regards to section 505(b), the court noted that the legislation penalizes any statement, rumor or report which jeopardizes the State security or Public order and does not exceed the bound of reasonable restrictions. Thus, the court held sections 124(a) and 505 (b) to be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution. (^4) (1942) F.C.R. 38
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar was without a doubt a landmark case. It set lot of disputes to rest regarding the sedition law. While upholding the constitutionality of the law, court also limited its scope to avoid misuse, in order to divert it’s association as being a signature law of British colonialism to protection and stability of modern welfare state. It has been 59 years since the day of this judgment. A lot has happened in the sphere of sedition law and lot will happen. Sedition particularly came into notice of even general public in recent years especially during and post-pandemic period. Newspapers, be it the editorials or front page bulletin- you will definitely find a mention of sedition. And there is not even the danger of missing it in fine print, it would probably be written in bold letters to signify the attention it is getting. But why is there so much volume surrounding Sedition laws. Since 2016 there has been a whooping increase in the number of cases filed under sedition while the conviction rate remained low, according to some reports even as low as 3.3%^5. Since then it could always be felt lingering in the shadows. But moving back to Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, since the historic judgment of 1962, this case has been cited repeatedly to both uphold the constitutionality of the law and protect against its misuse. Like in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab^6 the Supreme Court held that raising lonesome slogans by few individuals without anything more could be seen as to incite any response or reaction from anyone in public does not constitute the offence of sedition. There is a need to satisfy one of the essential ingredients in the Kedar Nath Case. In the landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal once again Kedar Nath judgment was cited. Recently Kedar Nath Singh judgment was discussed at length in a sedition case against journalist Vinod Dua^7. The court clarified that journalists are entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh judgment. Not only this, there was a very important suggestion that was made by Vinod Dua. It suggested that every state should have a committee that would comprise of a High court judge, leader of (^5) https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-sedition-law-vinod-dua-case-modi-govt- freedom-of-press-7343120/ (^6) https://blog.ipleaders.in/kedar-nath-singh-case-interpretation-of-sedition-with-regard-to-article-191a/ (^7) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/vinod-dua-sedition-case-supreme-court-kedar-nath-ruling-explained- 7343405/
