Home case law Kedar Nath Singh case – interpretation of sedition with regard to Article...

Kedar Nath Singh case – interpretation of sedition with regard to Article 19(1)(a)

August 5, 2021

280

This article is written by Ronika Tater, from the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, School of Law. In this article, she discusses the importance of the Kedar Nath case in consonance with Article 19(1)(a). Also, provides various other case laws to justify the title of the given article.

Introduction

Section 124A deals with the law of sedition in India and it is mentioned under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The objective behind adding this provision is that every State with its present Government is envisaged with the power to punish whosoever by their conduct harms the safety and stability of the State, or spreads the feeling of disloyalty or enmity to disrupt the function of the State or public order. Hence, the existence of the Government is essential for the stability of the State. The offence of conditions the sedition should be in the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India and not encroach upon the fundamental rights of the individual.

Meaning of sedition

It was enacted in the Indian Penal Code after the recommendations of the first law commission. The meaning of sedition was well explained by Lord Fitzgerald in the case of, Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan, (1868). Sedition is a crime against society and it consists of the practices, by words, deed or writing, expression, visual representation with the attempt to disrupt the peace of the State. The object of sedition is to induce or incite discontent and to provoke the Government and bring the function of the State into contempt. Moreover, it is important to note that the disapprobation of the administration or criticism of political matters is not sedition. The actions without the lack of intention to excite or induce hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government do not constitute an offence under the IPC.

Essential ingredients of Section 124A

The following are the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Act are as below-mentioned:

Sedition activities such as words, signs, visual representation, or any other means by which the offence can be committed.
The sedition activities must bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt.
Excite disaffection is contrary to disapprobation as if the sedition activities are caused with the intention of disposition not to obey the lawful activities of the Government in the minds of the hearers or reader, they will be guilty of the offence.
The disaffection should be towards the government established by law and not its agencies.
Expressing disapprobation is not punishable as fair criticism is protected under the freedom of speech and expression.

Case laws

Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chandra Bose, (1891), is the first case in India and the first-ever trial under sedition law. In this case, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court explained the term disaffection and its distinction with the term disapprobation. The court observed that whoever excites or attempts a feeling opposite of affection is liable for sedition. Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897), is the first case wherein the sedition law under Section 124A is outlined. The court states that the amount or intensity of the disloyalty towards the Government is immaterial. The act of hatred and disaffection either great or small will be guilty under this provision.

The case of, Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King-Emperor, (1897), held that the essential ingredient to constitute the offence of sedition is incitement of violence, not mere abusive words. The acts or words complained should cause incitement and reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder to constitute disaffection. The court also stated that the words, deeds, or writing constituting sedition should be seen from two sides. If they have the intention or tendency then it is easy to constitute sedition. But, if the sedition activities are made where the Government and the law cease to obey the law and only anarchy follows.

The constitutional validity of Section 124A

On 1st December 1948, K.M. Munshi proposed an amendment in the Constituent Assembly discussion for dropping the sedition law as a restriction, etc. The fact that the sedition is against the essence of democracy. However, after independence Section 124A IPC was for the first time came into consideration in the case of Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950). Subsequently, the Constitution First (Amendment) Act, 1951, inserted two words namely “in the interest of the security of the State” and “public order” under Article 19(2) which defines the reasonable restriction that can be put by the law on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). In the case of Tara Singh Gopichand v. State, (1951), the court declared Section 124A to be unconstitutional and it has no place in a democratic government. In a similar case of, Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1959), the Allahabad High Court declared Section 124A to be ultra vires of the Constitution as it imposes a restriction on Article 19(1)(a) and it is not in the interest of the general public.

Case analysis of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962), upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A and held it to be in harmony with Article 19(1)(a).

Facts

In this case, Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party, had taken on the ruling party of congress by using the wrong words. For instance, the ‘dogs of the CID’, congress ‘goondas to the gaddi’, the blood of the mazdoors, and Kisan are being sucked by the ruling party. He also stated that the ‘capitalists and the zamindars’ helped Congress. He believed in revolution and specifically targeted Vinoba Bhave for creating confusion in the minds of the public and that Congress is entangling them with bribery, corruption, and black marketing. In this case, the accused was charged for sedition and Section 505 IPC

Issues

Whether Section 124A and 505 of the IPC are ultra vires of A.19(1)(a) read with A.19(2) of the Constitution?
Whether the intention of the accused is to create disorder, disaffection, incitement to violence in order to be guilty of the offence of sedition law?

Judgment

In a democratic country, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a sine qua non, but reasonable restriction as mentioned under A. 19(2) is necessary in the interest of the sovereignty, safety, integrity, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality or contempt of court. Consequently, any law which is made in the interest of public order is intra vires of the Constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court held that Section 124A and Section 505 of IPC are intra vires of the Constitution and in harmony with A.19(1)(a) read with A.19(2) of the Constitution. Also, that the accused has no intention to create public disorder, disturbance of law and order established by the law.

Relevance

This case is essential in understanding that the line separating attempting disaffection towards the Government and legitimate political activity in a democratic form of Government is very thin and sensitive. Hence, legitimate political criticism of the Government in power no matter how strongly worded would be within reasonable limits and consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. In nutshell, the Supreme Court has stated that S.124A cannot be interpreted literally. The following are the two essential ingredients to be satisfied to establish the crime of sedition under this provision:

The act must be accompanied to cause the ‘effect of subverting the Government in power by violent means.
The act must be with the intention, tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public tranquillity or law and order by inciting or attempting violence.

Recent case laws

In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995), 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 the public does not constitute the office of sedition. There is a need to satisfy one of the essential ingredients established in the Kedar Nath case.

In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2021), the Supreme Court while quashing the sedition case against the journalist Vinod Dua stated that every journalist is entitled to the protection of Kedar Nath Judgement. It also stated that every prosecution under Section 124A and 505 IPC should strictly abide by the scope and ambit of the said Sections as law laid down in the Kedar Nath Singh case.

Facts

In a video, Journalist Vinod Dua has criticised Prime Minister Narender Modi and the Centre for mishandling the migrant crisis last year during the time of COVID-19. The Himachal Pradesh government and the ruling party filed a case of sedition against Vinod Dua under S. 124A. They stated that Vinod Dua has attempted to spread misinformation or incorrect information in the public causing panic among them. For instance, the statement that “some people feared that there could be a food riot post lockdown without any facts has led to panic in the public”.

Issues

Whether Section 124A is ultra vires of A.19(1)(a)?
Whether the intention was to create disorder, disaffection, incitement to violence in order to be guilty of the offence of sedition law?
Whether such statements were deliberate or unintended and innocent assertions?

Judgment

The Supreme Court while quashing the sedition case stated that the remarks constituted genuine criticism of the government and could be said to be seditious. It upheld the right of every journalist under the right to freedom of speech and expression to criticise, even strongly the measures of the government with the view of not resorting to violence. The free speech of a journalist should be protected under Article 19 of the Constitution and should be protected from charges of sedition. While stating the judgment the court also observed that the essence of true democracy is in the mere criticism of governments. The right to fair and reasonable criticism is a source of strength for a nation rather than a weakness. Hence, the Government should try to suppress the speech and expression of individuals.

Reforms required

The following are some of the defects that required reforms in the Section 124A of the IPC:

The tendency of intention required to commit sedition has not been defined.
The scope of the Section should be widened as disaffection does not take into account the Constitution, Legislatures, Executive, and the Administration of justice.
Bridging the odd gap of punishment either ‘imprisonment for life’ or ‘imprisonment for a term of three years only’, by incorporating the maximum punishment for sedition to be of seven years rigorous imprisonment or fine.

Further, the recent Law Commission of India in, Consultation Paper of Sedition, 2018, has provided ten crucial points to be relooked concerning the need to protect national integrity, the right to free speech and expression, dissent, and criticism of policy issues.

Conclusion

The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar is one of the most important and widely used precedents by the courts all over and it has also supported judicial development concerning cases under the sedition law. The judgment highlights the importance of the fundamental right of speech and expression, reasonable restriction put on the rights, and has mentioned a link between the legitimate power of criticism and disruption of public order. It has been seen that the provisions are used by the government to suppress the voice of anyone standing to dissent their opinion in the name of disaffection towards the ruling government. However, the judgment still holds strong and provides the two conditions which are required to be fulfilled to constitute the crime.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Kedar Nath Singh case – interpretation of sedition with regard to Article 19(1)(a)

Introduction

Meaning of sedition