Article On Sedition Law

The section was further amended by the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act (IV of 1898). As a result of the amendment, the single explanation to the section was replaced by three separate explanations as they stand now. The section, as it now stands in its present form, is the result of the several A.O.s of 1937, 1948 and 1950, as a result of the constitutional changes, by the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Independence Act of 1947 and by the Indian Constitution of 1950. Section 124A, as it has emerged after successive amendments by way of adaptations as aforesaid, reads as follows :

“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 transportation for life or any shorter term to which fine may be added or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1.

The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings or enmity.

Explanation 2.

Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3.

Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative of other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”

This offence, which is generally known as the offence of Sedition, occurs in Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, headed ‘Of offences against the State’. This species of offence against the State was not an invention of the British Government in India, but has been known in England for centuries. Every State, whatever its form of Government, has to be armed with the power to punish those who, by their conduct, jeopardise the safety and stability of the State, or disseminate such feelings of disloyalty as have the tendency to lead to the disruption of the State or to public disorder.
However after independence, we got our own constitution therein the fundamental right of every citizen was guaranteed by several articles including Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
“19. (1) All citizens shall have the right.
(a) to freedom of speech and expression…” This guaranteed right is subject to the right of the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions, the ambit of which is indicated by clause (2), which, in its amended form, reads as follows :
“(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Despite the protection of fundamental rights by constitution the burning question how for the offence, as defined in s. 124A of the Indian Penal Code, is consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The above question was in detail discussed by constitutional bench of Honble SC in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 – SC) : MANU/SC/0074/1962
if a speech or a writing excites people to violence or have the tendency to create public disorder, it would not come within the definition of ‘sedition’. What has been contended is that a person who makes a very strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of measures of Government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the penal section. But, in our opinion, such words written or spoke would be outside the scope of the section. In this connection, it is pertinent to observe that the security of the State, which depends upon the maintenance of law and order is the very basic consideration upon which legislation, with view to punishing offences against the State, is undertaken. Such a legislation has, on the one hand, fully to protect and guarantee the freedom of speech and expression, which is the sine quo non of a democratic form of Government that our Constitution has established. This Court, as the custodian and guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens, has the duty cast upon it of striking down any law which unduly restricts the freedom of speech and expression with which we are concerned in this case. But the freedom has to be guarded against becoming a licence for vilification and condemnation of the Government established by law, in words, which incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder. The Court, has, therefore, the duty cast upon it of drawing a clear line of demarcation between the ambit of a citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the power of the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on that guaranteed right in the interest of, inter alia, security of the State and public order. We have, therefore, to determine how far the Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to be within the justifiable limits of legislation.

If is held, in consonance with the views expressed by the Federal Court in the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor MANU/FE/0005/1942 : (1942) F.C.R. 38 that the gist of the offence of ‘sedition’ is incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorders by words spoken or written, which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating
disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State in other words bringing the law into line with the law of sedition in England, as was the intention of the legislators when they introduced s. 124A into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 as aforesaid, the law will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution, if on the other hand we give a literal meaning to the words of the section, divorced from all the antecedent background in which the law of sedition has grown, as load down in the several decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it will be true to say that the section is not only within but also very much beyond the limits laid down in clause (2) aforesaid.
Further In Romesh Thappar case MANU/SC/0006/1950 : 1950 SCR 594 Supreme Court said at p. 602:
… (The freedom) lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of abuse…. (But) ‘it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits’.
In Bennett Coleman case MANU/SC/0038/1972 : (1972) 2 SCC 788: AIR 1973 SC 106: (1973) 2 SCR 757 A.N. Ray, C.J. on behalf of the majority said at p. 796 (SCC p. 823, para 80) thus:
The faith of a citizen is that political wisdom and virtue will sustain themselves in the free market of ideas so long as the channels of communication are left open. The faith in the popular Government rests on the old dictum ‘let the people have the truth and the freedom to discuss it and all will go well’. The liberty of the press remains an ‘Ark of the Covenant’ in every democracy…. The newspapers give ideas. The newspapers give the people the freedom to find out what ideas are correct.
recently In Vinod Dua vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (03.06.2021 – SC) : MANU/SC/0363/2021 imphasied the need of press and free expression.
However in democratic country like India where most of public are still not very educated and well known regarding the govt/non govt policy, which ultimately shapes country and gives all possible growth to citizens. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible. Thus In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social. political, and economical intercourse. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. The authors of the articles/news which are published in
newspapers have to be critical of the actions of Government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power.
The leaders of the Indian independence movement attached special significance to the freedom of speech and expression which included freedom of press apart from other freedoms During their struggle for freedom they were moved by the American Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which guaranteed the freedom of the press Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his historic resolution containing the aims and objects of the Constitution to be enacted by the Constituent Assembly said that the Constitution should guarantee and secure to all the people of India among others freedom of thought and expression. He also stated elsewhere that “I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press” [See D.R. Mankekar: The Press under Pressure (1973) p. 25]. on 18th March 1922, Gandhi faced a trial in a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The charge against him was of “bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s government established by law in British India.” Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, a criminal code drafted and enacted by the British colonial government about half a century before this trial, criminalised any speech that incited or attempted to incite ‘disaffection’ against the government. During the trial, even as Gandhi pleaded guilty of the offence, he strongly expressed his criticism against section 124A. According to Gandhi this section was “the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.” In his speech at the trial, Gandhi said, “Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence.” The British government in India had brutally used this law to suppress the emerging anti-colonial movement in India. However in present day the scenario does not change much and Honble SC may revisit the section 124A, in view of fundamental rights enshrined in constitution, observed by itself in hundred of judgements and golden dreams seen by our freedom fighters.