Sedition under Section 124-A IPC

Definition and Legal Status

Sedition, a term not explicitly mentioned in Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), embodies actions aimed at inciting disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the government established by law. Sir James Stephen’s definition encapsulates this concept, highlighting the difference between seditious intention and legitimate criticism of the government for reformative purposes.

Historical Context and Legal Interpretations

Sedition has evolved from its common law roots, emphasizing the utterance or publication of seditious words or actions. In India, this law parallels the English law of sedition but diverges in treating abetment of war against the state on par with waging war itself (IPC Section 121).

Judicial Perspectives on Section 124-A

  • Ram Nandan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 Alld. 101): Initially declared Section 124-A as ultra vires for impinging on free speech, but was overruled by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Das v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955).
  • Tara Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1950 SC 124): Struck down Section 124-A as unconstitutional, later counteracted by the constitutional 1st Amendment Act, 1951.

Constitutional Compatibility and Public Order

The Supreme Court, in Kedarnath v. State of Bihar, upheld Section 124-A as intra vires, aligning it with Article 19(1)(a) under reasonable restrictions for maintaining public order and state security. This judgement distinguishes between criticism for reform and acts inciting disaffection or violence.

Essentials of Sedition

  1. Actions inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government of India.
  2. Such actions can be through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations.

Legal Nuances and Case Laws

  • Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 698) and Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore (1948 52 Mys HCR 265): Emphasize the intention behind seditious speech.
  • Paramanand v. Emperor (AIR 1941 All 156 1941 All LJ 26 42 Cr LJ 46): Discusses the severity of spoken or written words in sedition.
  • Naurang Singh (1986 Cr LJ 846 P&H) and Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995 3 SCC 214 1995 SCC (Cri) 432): Highlight the importance of context and intention behind seditious acts.

Intention: The Core of Sedition

The intention is pivotal in determining sedition. It must be proved that the accused intended to incite disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the government. The impact of seditious acts, regardless of whether they incite actual violence, is secondary to the intent behind them.

Procedural Aspects

  • A proper complaint under Section 124-A must include the seditious material or its essence.
  • Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 mandates prior sanction from the central or state government for cognizance of sedition offenses, ensuring a check on the arbitrary application of this section.

Concluding Remarks

In summary, sedition in India is a complex interplay of the intention behind acts deemed seditious, their contextual interpretation, and the balance between freedom of speech and state security. The judiciary’s nuanced approach seeks to distinguish between constructive criticism and actions genuinely harmful to public order and the integrity of the state. Now, in Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 the provision has been repealed with effect from 1st July, 2024.

Leave a Reply