1

Projects and Presentations

Right to Protest and Laws of Sedition

Submitted By -
K Sai Prashanth Reddy
Division- C
PRN- 15010324284

Supervised By-
Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan
&
Prof. Shailendra Kumar

March, 2020

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, PUNE
 2

CERTIFICATE

A research project entitled “Laws of Sedition and Right to Protest” submitted to Symbiosis
Law School, Hyderabad for Projects and Presentations subject as part of the Internal
Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Dr. Sarfaraz
Ahmed Khan Prof. Shailendra Kumar in March, 2020. The research paper has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.

Date: 23rd March, 2020

 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express our sincere gratitude and indebtedness in the subject and for his
enlightening lectures on Projects and Presentations. I would also like to express our sincere
gratitude to our teaching staff for guiding us towards the path towards gaining knowledge. I
would also like to thank Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad’s library for the wealth of
information therein. I would like to thank Library Staff as well for their significant co-
operation in the completion of this research paper.

I would also like to thank our batch mates and seniors who inspired, helped and guided us in
making this project. I am grateful to some of my seniors for their incredible guidance and
support.

Name: K Sai Prashanth Reddy

Roll no: 266
Semester- X
 4

Abstract
In the backdrop of the controversies like Gujarat (Patel Quota Agitation), the JNU
Students Agitation and cases previously registered against many persons including Mahatma
Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Dr. E. Rati Rao, Bharat Desai,
Manoj Shinde vs. Gopalaswamy, many issues were raised in relation to sedition law in India
and its use by the Government. Many a time it is alleged that the Central & State
Governments use this law arbitrarily. There is a strong case to question the continuation of
sedition laws in democratic India for at least three reasons. First, they were framed by
colonial ‘rulers’ to suppress dissent raised by the ‘ruled’, and is out of place in a democratic
republic in which political sovereignty rests with the citizens. Second, despite the highest
judiciary of independent India reading down the Section, there appears to be little political
restraint in invoking it to incarcerate dissenters of all hues. Third, the existing provisions of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are sufficient to address all threats to violence and public order.
An analysis of the cases of sedition before the High Courts and Supreme Court show that the
offence of sedition is increasingly becoming obsolete. Problems of public order, which the
law purportedly addresses, may instead be addressed through other laws that have been
enacted for that specific purpose. This article covers different issues in relation to sedition
law in India.

Research Statement
The legal apparatus to control freedom of speech and expression was historically handed
down by the British, who took it upon themselves to codify criminal and civil laws in India.
They devised far reaching laws that were considered relevant according to the needs of the
colonial context. Some of these laws were initiated to maintain their control over means of
free expression, especially the press, in order to avoid its use in cultivating mass unrest by the
nationalists, and other laws were devised in order to legitimize the authority of the British, as
neutral arbiters of diverse cultural and religious interests that communities in India
represented. However, even after independence, the government and law makers of the day,
decided to incorporate the existing colonial legal codes, mostly without amendments, into the
statutory laws of free India. This approach of the postcolonial state to appropriate laws
devised by the British has consistently faced criticism. It is equally true that a study of the
legislative proceedings of the colonial period reveal that some Indian representatives raised
pertinent issues with regard to British attempts to insert newer laws or amend older ones. But,
there was a consensus that free speech needed to be curbed in order to protect other interests.
These concerns, like those of public order and protecting religious sentimentalities of
different communities from hurt, formed the bedrock on which the edifice for the legal
regime to control free speech was constructed. After independence, though the nature of
Indian state and its character changed significantly, the concerns regarding probable harm of
free speech remained similar as during colonial period. Challenges like partition, and other
events that marked the birth of India as a free nation, warranted a fresh consideration of the
legal aspects in order to avoid crisis at the level of internal security and prevent public order
issues. The new set of challenges forced amendments to the constitution, most significantly to
those articles that dealt with freedom of speech and expression, in order to strengthen the
 5

executive’s control. The justification forwarded, was that the citizens of a free nation should
entrust confidence in its democratic government to protect and promote the interests of its
citizens. This paternal attitude is explicitly reflected in the debates of the Parliament when
amendments were introduced to the constitutional provisions as well as the statutory laws.
The main research problem is that what criteria can be evolved in order to strike a
balance between the rights of the press versus the right of the individual. This problem
includes the issues like what would be the restraints to be imposed upon the free press. In
spite of the fact that there are a number of restrictions already prevailing over the freedom of
press, but still the press has extended its scope, to such an extent that the day will not be far
away when the press will rule through its pen.
Since the research is doctrinal in nature thus here I have my best to insert the appropriate
set of questions. These questions are to satisfy the derived discussion on the issue taken by
me as research problem. Such as; Weather the laws available are sufficient to satisfy the
freedom of speech and expression in context to right to life and personal liberty? Are these
laws in whole or in part curtailing the freedom of speech and expression? What kind of laws
can create a balancing approach between right of speech and expression and the integrity of
the Indian constitution? In which country people are more enjoying their rights in a decent
way?

Research Methodology
The methodology adopted in this research paper is exploratory, descriptive and
explanatory. Exploratory because the researcher, on the basis of the study undertaken, is
convinced that this paper will lay the foundation for discovering the new frontiers of
knowledge and research on this crucial subject in the future. Descriptive because the
researcher will explore and explain the issue while providing additional information on the
law, including the practices that obtain in other countries. More to the point, the researcher
will also try to explain in greater detail the various infractions and violations of the law, fill in
the missing gaps and expand our understanding on the pros and cons of the law and the
imperative need for checking the abuse or misuse of the law. As for the explanatory method,
the researcher makes a humble attempt to dot the I’s and connect the T’s to understand the
cause and effect. The researcher seeks to explain the developments in this critical area and
disseminate information to the academic community, intelligentsia and the society at large so
that the research paper could influence the decision-making process at the highest level and
facilitate the much-needed course corrections.
More to the point, the methodology adopted in this paper is primarily historical-
analytical because whatever data available on this subject is mainly covered by secondary
sources of information such as newspapers and periodicals. The two important judgments of
the Supreme Court of India: Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar; and Balwant Singh vs. State
of Punjab – can be classified under primary sources.
The research methodology adopted in this research paper is doctrinal in nature for the
qualitative enquiry of the subject matter. The author has relied on this methodology backed
 6

by theoretical research of articles, convention, case laws, reports, and statutes; from various
sources.
The present work is based upon Doctrinal Research Methodology; the researcher has
made an intensive as well as extensive study of concept of democracy, freedom of speech and
expression, and media. The present study endeavours to see the role of media in Indian
democracy in the light of right to freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed
under Indian Constitution under the provision of Art. 19(1) (a).
Being library based work; Literature for this study has been collected from various
primary as well as secondary sources. Primary sources include Indian Statutes, Rules,
Regulations, Constituent Assembly Debates, Reports of the Working Committees, Standing
Committees and Cabinet Committees, judgments of the various High Courts and the Supreme
Court, bare provisions of the Constitution and recommendations of the reports. Secondary
sources include books of the eminent authors, national as well as international articles in
research journals, magazines, articles or editorials in various newspapers, notes and
publications of internet and official websites etc. On the basis of the present study, suitable
modifications, alterations have been suggested for proper and effective role of media in
Indian democracy.

Literature Review
I primarily focus on two aspects: a) the context in which the laws governing sedition
were created, or amended; and, b) the debates in the Legislative Assembly (for laws
formulated during colonial times), and in the Constituent Assembly (during the making of the
constitution, as well as in the Parliament (where significant amendments were made to the
laws after Independence). Tracing the legal history helped me to be sensitive to any shift, in
the approach of important players (like Indian leaders) towards freedom of speech and
expression and its boundaries, at different moments in history. For example, it helped me to
contemplate, how the change in context, especially from a colonial to an independent nation,
introduced Indian leaders to new forms of challenges, which had direct influence on the way,
the scope of freedom of speech and expression was re-defined after Independence. Locating
the historical trajectory through which, debates around free speech developed in India, also
helps us to understand, the importance of context in shaping the debates around important
concepts, like freedom of expression. For example, the historical trajectory reveals that, the
challenges facing Indian society were completely different in nature, than the western
democracies. The history of colonialism and the challenges of managing disputes in a multi-
religious country, among others, had a significant impact on how the scope and the
boundaries of free speech was imagined by the Indian leaders. This is explicitly reflected in
the way laws governing free speech are defined in the Indian context, which is also
significantly different than other western democracies.

Chapterisation
1. Chapter 1: Introduction.
 7

In the introductory chapter I discuss the concept of sedition read with right to protest.
Here I concentrate on the legal provisions and the need for this study.
2. Chapter 2: Laws of sedition in Colonial India: The development of a suppression
tool.
In this chapter the history of the debate in colonial times is traced in order to
understand the making of some of the most important laws that continue to govern
sedition and right to protest. This historical context provides an account of how
British and Indian leaders understood the issue of limiting one’s right to express his
dissent.
3. Chapter 3: Sedition under Indian Law: Decoding the Constitutional and Legal
Definition of Sedition.
In this chapter a study of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath is made in
details. It laid down the interpretation of the law of sedition as it is understood today.
In this decision, five appeals to the Apex Court were clubbed together to decide the
issue of the constitutionality of 124A of the IPC in light of Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution.
4. Chapter 4: Preventing protests: Government tool in Sedition laws.
The central argument I will advance in this chapter is that the constitutional as well as
legal provisions for right to protest and it’s how the concept of sedition is used to
limits government intervention. Also, the debates in the Constituent Assembly and
evolving judgements give us useful clues and indications about the attitude of the
Indian lawmakers and changing judiciary on the subject.
5. Chapter 5: Conclusion
This chapter shall summarize the entire study focusing on major arguments, and
highlighting the scope for future research in the area of study.
 8

Chapter I - Introduction
A colonial legacy like sedition, has no place in a democracy like India. It expects citizen
to have popular affection towards state and not to exhibit hatred or hostility towards the
government which is established by law. The ability of sedition laws to supress dissenting
political opinions and citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression makes a strong case
for abolishing sedition laws in India. Existence of these laws is impermissible in a democracy
like India. The arbitrary use of these laws despite the Supreme Court’s order to narrow the
scope of sedition, itself proves that the existence of sedition laws on the statute books
threatens the democratic values. The need of the hour is to bring changes to sedition laws in
tune with most modern democratic frameworks like England and New Zealand.
The word “Sedition” does not occur in Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code or in the
Defense of India Rule. It is only found as a marginal note to Section 124-A, and is not an
operative part of the section but merely provides the name by which the crime defined in the
section will be known.
The offence under S. 124 A captioned as “Sedition” is closely allied to treason-an
offence against the state. Many personalities including the Father of the Nation and several
freedom fighters have tried and have been punished during the imperial rule under the above
section1. The IPC provision is read with the constitutional provisions to see whether the right
to freedom of speech2 is exercised in permissible limits and whether the action of the State
against any person is just or not.
After the Constitution of India came into operation an important question relating to the
Constitutionality of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code came in to existence. Article 19
of the Constitution was raised in a few cases leading to a conflict of decision in high courts.
There are two divergent views in this regard. The protagonist of one view hold that Section
124-A of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires of the Constitution in so far as it seeks to punish
merely bad feelings against the Government. It is unreasonable restriction on freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article19 (1) (a) and is not saved under Article 19(2)
of the Constitution by the expression ‘in the interest of Public order’3.
Sedition laws were applicable in England, but in the colonies they attained their most
oppressive form, helping to succour imperial rule against ascending nationalism in the
colonies including India. Victims of sedition law included eminent nationalists like Mahatma
Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant. Survival of these laws after the fall of

1
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the Indian Penal Code, 34th Edi, 2014, P. 262
2
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India provides for the right to freedom of speech & expression for
citizens.
3
Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R ALL 101. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
 9

colonial rule is ironic, as they continue to haunt the social activists, media persons, political
dissenters and public intellectuals even after independence of our country. Like, Dr. Binayak
Sen was denied bail by Bilaspur High Court despite widespread criticism of trail court
judgment, to charge him on the alleged offence of sedition.
The recent trend of applying sedition laws against human rights activists, journalists,
political activists, and public intellectuals in India have raised important questions on the
undemocratic nature and the upon the discretion of the ruler of these laws, which were
introduced by the British colonial Government. The application of these laws in recent
Jawaharlal Nehru University Case has faced a widespread public criticism and has raised
serious questions about the validity of these laws in a modern constitutional democracy. From
the history of sedition laws it is quite clear that these laws are part of a larger framework of
colonial laws. Britain introduced sedition laws to curb all types of nationalist movement in
their occupied colonies. However, Sedition law was abolished in Britain through the
Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, under Gordon Brown’s Labour Government4.
The recent spate in cases of charging social activists, media persons and public
intellectuals with sedition have brought constitutional democracy of India into question.
These laws were introduced by the British Colonial Government to suppress dissent. After
the demise of colonial rule, these laws are now liberally used by central and state
governments to rein journalists and curb freedom of speech. The specificity of sedition laws
recline in the language of ‘disaffection’ and gravity of the punishment with them.
In a country like India, there is always a rift between the government and its people.
Many issues arise in day today life. Under the garb of welfare of the people, the government
introduces different kind of policies, schemes, plans etc. On the other hand, there are
resenting voices of people against the government alleging that the policies, schemes, plans
etc. are part of the ideological agenda of a ruling political party which take away the rights of
the people. Hence, the conflict is inevitable.
1.1 Comparative Law
Few previously colonized nations retained sedition laws after achieving autonomy from
their colonial rulers. Many of these countries have decriminalized sedition or the courts have
extremely narrowed its scope. While sedition law have been repealed from the statute books
in United Kingdom and New Zealand, sedition laws have fallen into disuse in United States
and Nigeria.
The punishment for sedition under section 124(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
absolutely disproportionate to the charge. The analysis of punishment for other similar
charges under IPC makes this disparity obvious. Chapter 6 of IPC (Offences against the
State) includes Sedition in contrast with crimes like ‘unlawful assembly’ and ‘rioting’ that are
included in chapter 8 (offences against Public Tranquillity).Promoting enmity between
religious groups is punishable under section 153(A) of IPC by a maximum imprisonment of
three years and under section 153(B) imputations prejudicial to national integration is

4
Section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act. 2009.
 10

punishable by a maximum imprisonment of three years, and even if the offense is committed
in a place of worship, the maximum punishment will still be five years imprisonment.
Similarly, the quantum of punishment outlined in the IPC against public tranquillity are not
as harsh as compared to sedition. For example, the punishment for unlawful assembly under
section 143 of IPC is imprisonment of maximum six months. The inordinate nature of the
punishment for sedition under section 124(A) of IPC makes it very difficult for the accused to
get bail and has immensely serious consequences for those convicted of sedition.
1. United Kingdom
In Britain, the sedition and criminal libel evolved from the crime of treason. Under the
Treason Act, 1795, any act which threatens the person of the King, his government or the
constitution, would be regarded as a crime of treason. The Treason Felony Act, 1848 is still
in force today in England.
In United Kingdom the last prosecution for sedition was in 1972. R v. Chief
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Choudhury5, was the last case where it was
attempted to prosecute a person for sedition. All the following attempts to prosecute political
activists and intellectuals have failed. The accused were charged for publication of Salman
Rushdie’s book, titled ‘Satantic verses’. The book was considered to be a vituperative attack
on Muslim religion, which sparked violence in the U.K. It was attempted to prosecute Mr.
Salman Rushdie and publisher for the offence of sedition. However, the summon application
failed as there was no intent to provoke violence or defiance of the United Kingdom
democratic institutions by either of the accused.
United Kingdom Law Commission recommended to repeal the offence of seditious
libel in 19776. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered these recommendations of
Law Commission while preparing a note on freedom of press and crime of seditious libel 7.
Since the political speeches are protected by ECHR, these crimes would be in violation since
they would have a “chilling effect” on censure of government. Therefore, these crimes would
be violative of Article 12 of the Human Rights Act, 1998, which was enacted to meet the
obligation under ECHR. Eventually, the offences of sedition and seditious libel were
abolished through the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009. However, any seditious act would still
be prosecuted under section 3 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.
The primary consideration for abolition of sedition was the framework of the offence
which was outmoded. Sedition laws were against the values of constitutional democracies.
Even though the prosecutions were infrequent, even the intermittent application of the law
had a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech and expression.
2. New Zealand

5
7R v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 All ER 313.
6
The Law Commission, Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper No 72), para 78 & 96(6) (1977);
The Law Commission, Criminal Law: Report on Criminal Libel (Cm 9618, 1985).
7
9Written evidence submitted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, available at:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/362we14.htm> accessed 88
Marc 2020.
 11

In New Zealand, the offence of sedition has the similar understanding of sedition in
United Kingdom. Seditious offences are set out in sections 81 – 85 of the Crimes Act of
1961. Sedition was abolished by the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill,
2007. There are two noteworthy sedition trails which are even mentioned in the background
note of the Crimes (Repeal of Sedition Offences) Amendment Bill, 2007. The trail of James
Liston in 1922. Liston was prosecuted for questioning the Anglo-Irish Treaty and glorifying
the rebels of the Easter Rising of 1916, while giving a speech on the Irish question at the
Town Hall in Auckland. He was later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Auckland. In 2006,
Timothy Selwyn, a political activist was charged of sedition for breaking the window glass of
then-Prime Minister Helen Clark’s office and calling other New Zealanders to take "similar
action" on their own, through two pamphlets that he published and distributed. He was
convicted only for the seditious statements in the pamphlet asking other like-minded New
Zealanders to take similar action8.
The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, 2007 pointed towards the
“tainted history” of the archaic sedition laws. Certain opinions might be disliked and
unreasonable but criminalising them is not appropriate. It’s against the democratic principles
and in particular, the Bill of Rights in 1990. In practice, these laws were uncertain and
outmoded, they were mostly used to supress political opposition, and therefore these offence
had to be repealed9.
New Zealand’s Parliament, while repealing and not replacing sedition, said that modern
constitutional democracies such as United States, Canada, Australia or England had let the
sedition laws fall into disuse. It is not necessary to retain the offence of sedition in the statute
books. The elements of the offence can be addressed by other criminal law provisions.
United Kingdom and New Zealand both had almost similar consideration while
abolishing sedition laws i.e. the definition and framework of sedition is vague and uncertain.
The sedition laws refer to historical context which are now obsolete. The law is archaic and
offends the values of modern democracies.

8
R v. Selwyn, Bell [2003] EWCA Crim 319
9
Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, 2007, available at
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/ 0B8AD487-C576-4BCE-9A31-FD96362817F
7/56750/1523CrimesSedition3.pdf
 12

Chapter II - Laws of sedition in Colonial India: The development of a

suppression tool.
Sedition laws are found in the following laws in India: The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 124 (A)); the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 95); the Seditious
Meetings Act, 1911; and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (Section 2 (o) (iii)).
Common to these laws is the idea of „disaffection‟ that we have inherited from the British.
“Disaffection” has been defined as a feeling that can exist only between “the ruler” and “the
ruled”. The ruler must be accepted as a ruler.
The law relating to the offence of sedition was first introduced in colonial India through
Clause 113 of the Draft Indian Penal Code, proposed by Thomas Babington Macaulay in
1837.1 However, when the IPC was finally enacted after a period of 20 years in 1860, the
said section pertaining to sedition had inexplicably been omitted. Although Sir James
Fitzjames Stephen, architect of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, attributed the omission to an
‘unaccountable mistake’10, various other explanations for the omission have been given.
Some believe that the British government wanted to endorse more comprehensive and
powerful strategies against the press such as the institution of a deposit forfeiture system
along with more preventive and regulatory measures11. Others proffered that the omission
was to be primarily attributed to the existence of 121 and 121A of the IPC, 186012.
The law provision analogous to section 124A, the law which defines sedition in Indian
Penal Code, 1980, was section 113 of draft of Indian Penal Code prepared by the First Law
Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay, later the section was excluded from
Indian Penal Code as it was enacted in 1860. British colonial government in 1870 added
section 124A to IPC when it felt the need for a law to smother any voices of disagreement.
Mahatma Gandhi recognising it as a threat to democracy called it the ‘prince among the
political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens.13’
The framers of this section imported its features from diverse sources such as The
Treason Felony Act 1848, the common law of seditious libel and the English Law relating to
seditious words that were applicable to communities of person in addition to citizens and the
government14.
Editors of the nationalist newspapers were primarily prosecuted under the sedition law.
The first among those prosecutions was the trail of Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1981. He was

10
Walter Russel Donogh, A treatise on the law of sedition and cognate offences in British India, available at
http://archive.org/stream/onlawofsedition00dono#page/n23/mode/2up (Last visited on February 26, 2020).
11
R. Dhavan, Only The Good News: On The Law Of The Press In India 285-87 (1987).
12
Edmund C. Cox, Police and Crime in India 86-7 available at
http://archive. org/stream/policecrimeinind00coxerich#page/86/mode/2up (Last visited on February 26, 2020).
13
A.G., Noorani Indian Political Trials: 1775-1947, New Delhi: OUP, 2009, p. 235.
14
W.R. Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India, 1 (Calcutta: Thakker,
Spink and Co., 1911). Pg 4
 13

editor of Bangobasi newspaper. Bose published an article condemning the Age of Consent
Bill for interfering with orthodox Hindu Code and its coercive nature. In his article, he also
criticized negative impact of British colonialism on Indian economy. He was accused of
sedition for exceeding the limits of legitimate criticism and inciting religious feelings.
However, the court dropped proceedings against him after he apologized for publishing the
article15.
Disaffection is the opposite of that feeling, and manifests a lack of, or repudiation of
acceptance of a particular government as ruler. The draft Constitution included “sedition” and
the term “public order” as grounds on which laws limiting the fundamental right to speech
(Article 13) could be framed. However, the final draft of the Constitution eliminated sedition
from the list of exceptions to the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 (2)). This
amendment was the result of the initiative taken by K M Munshi who proposed these changes
in the debates in the constitutional Assembly. The law of sedition was introduced by Sec.
124A of the IPC in 1870 as a draconian measure to counter anti-colonial sentiments, and
most major leaders of the independence movement - – including Gandhi and Tilak – were
tried under this provision. Gandhi described Sec.124A as the “prince among the political
sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”. When the
constituent assembly deliberated on the scope and extent of restrictions that could be placed
on free speech, the prominent exclusion from what eventually became Article 19(2) was the
word sedition. In the original draft that was up for discussion, the word sedition had been
included as one of the grounds for restriction on speech. A view of the constituent assembly
during one of its debates. A number of the constituent assembly members took objection to
this and reminded the assembly that Indians had suffered greatly through the misuse of
sedition laws. T. T. Krishnamachari argued that the word sedition was anathema to Indians
given their experience of it and he suggested that the only instance where it was valid was
when the entire state itself is sought to be overthrown or undermined by force or otherwise,
leading to public disorder.
As stated in KENNY- the Law of Sedition relates to the uttering of the seditious words,
the publication of seditious libels, and conspiracies to do an act for the furtherance of a
seditious intention. Sedition, whether by words spoken or written, or by conduct, is a
misdemeanor at common law punishable by fine and imprisonment. Sir JAMES STEPHEN
defined a seditious intention as “an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite
disaffection against, the person of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the Government and
the constitution of the United Kingdom by law established, or either House of Parliament, or
the administration of Justice or to excite his Majesty’s subjects to attempt otherwise than by
lawful means, the alteration of any matters in Church or State by law established…..or to
raise discontent or disaffection amongst his Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill
will and Hostility between different classes of such subjects.” But an intention to show that
his Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures to point out errors or defects in the
government or constitution, as by law established with a view to their reformation, or to
15
Aravind Ganachari, ‘Combating Terror of Law in Colonial India: The Law of Sedition and the Nationalist
Response’ in M. Vandalos, G.K. Lotts, H.M. Teixera, A. Karzai & J. Haig, Boca Raton (eds.), Engaging Terror:
A Critical and Interdisciplinary Approach (Florida: Brown Walker Press, 2009)
 14

excite his Majesty’s subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in
Church or State by law established, or to point out, in order to their removal, matters which
are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill will between classes
of His Majesty’s subjects, is not a seditious intention. It is the right of every citizen to discuss
public affairs fully and freely but such discussions must not be directed to the incitement of
unlawful acts or calculated to excite disaffection. In a twentieth century prosecution for
sedition, the Judge told the jury that they could take into account the State of Public feelings.
HALSBURY lays down: the essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the
allegiance owed to the sovereign. Allegiance is due from all British subjects wherever they
may be local allegiance is owed by an alien under the protection of the crown so long as he is
resident within the realm and by a resident alien who goes abroad leaving his family or
effects within the realm or goes abroad in possession of a British Passport. An ambassador
who is not a subject of the State to which he is accredited does not owe any temporary
allegiance to that State.
 15

Chapter III: Sedition under Indian Law: Decoding the Constitutional

and Legal Definition of Sedition.
3.1 Definition of Section 124-A under IPC
Section 124A of the IPC is the primary source of sedition law in India. On a plain
reading of the section, one can identify the following four elements that are required for it to
be invoked:
1. A person must bring, or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt
to excite disaffection;
2. Such disaffection should be targeted against the government established by law in
India;
3. The said disaffection may be caused by words (written or spoken), or by signs, or by
visible representation, or otherwise; and
4. The said words must not amount to a fair criticism of policy or administrative action
undertaken by the government (which are protected by the explanations to the
section).
It is apparent that the section has been couched in the broadest possible language so as to
accord it with a wide ranging scope. Sedition is an intention driven offence. While actual
disturbance is not necessary to be proved to establish an offence under section 124A, it is
necessary to prove that the impugned words were uttered with the intention of inciting hatred;
a mere tendency to incite hatred would not suffice 16. Such intention must be gauged by the
standards of a reasonable man. This section has historically been employed against prominent
leaders of the national movement like Balgangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and Annie
Besant. However, as shall be subsequently discussed, the courts have increasingly moved
away from a draconian interpretation of the law and construed this Section in narrow terms to
try and prevent the misuse of excessively arbitrary and discretionary power by the authorities.
The first case that tackled the constitutionality of Section 124-A was Ram Nandan v.
State of U.P17. The Allahabad High court held that S.124-A of the IPC is ultra vires as it
violates Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. 124-A was said to restrict freedom of speech
and struck at the very roots of the constitution.
However, this was overruled in the case of Kedarnath Das vs State of Bihar 18. The court
in this case held that this section should limit acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement of violence. However, if this section is
used arbitrarily, it is in violation of Article 19.

16
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 356 (Justice Y.V. Chardrachud & V.R.
Manohar eds., 31st ed. 2006).
17
AIR 1959 All 101, 1959 CriLJ
18
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
 16

It should also be noted that in 1951 there was an amendment made in Article 19(2) which
included the expression “in the interest of” and “public order”. This amendment included the
legislative restriction on freedom of speech and expression. In Kedarnath Das vs State of
Bihar the Court was of the view that, the expression “in the interest of public order” has a
wider connotation, and not only includes acts which are likely to disturb public order but, can
also be interpreted to include Section 124 – A. It was further held that any act which is
enacted in the interest of public order can be saved from constitutional invalidity. The Court
also held that the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) is subject to the restriction under
19 (2) which comprises of – First, security of the state. Second, friendly relations with foreign
states. Third, public order. Fourth, decency or morality. Article 124 – A of the IPC is covered
under security of the state and public order since, the section penalizes any spoken or written
words or visible representation which, have the effect of bringing or which attempt to bring in
hatred or contempt or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards “the Government
established by law”.
3.2 Scope of the Section 124-A before the Constitution
The essence of an offence under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is the intention
with which the language complained of is used. The intention must be judged primarily by
the language itself. Where a person makes a speech the whole object of which is to rouse the
people and make them determined to resist the action of the authorities and to insist on
certain things being done or not done, and profess to teach the people rebellion or revolution
and how to take charge of the country he is punishable under this Section 124-A of the Indian
Penal Code. There should be absolutely and successful exciting of feeling of disaffection for
committing the crime under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Even the unsuccessful
attempt to exciting of feelings of disaffection and if any prisoners has tried to excite such
feelings of disaffection in other he would also be penalised as per the provision of Section
124-A of the Indian Penal Code. In other words successful attempt unsuccessful attempt to
excite disaffection places on same footing. A person cannot take plea that his act is
unsuccessful attempt to excite disaffection towards established Government. The offences
consist in exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the
Government. It is not the exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion or any sort of
actual disturbance, great or small. Whether any disturbance or outbreak was caused by these
Articles, is absolutely immaterial. If the accused intended by the Article to excite rebellion or
disturbance, his act would doubtless fall within Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code.
But even he neither excited nor intended to excite any rebellion or outbreak or forcible
resistance to the authority of the Government, still if he tried to excite feelings of enmity to
the Government that is sufficient to make him guilty under the Section.60Where the
Publication of Article in a Newspaper evinces a clear attempt to create feeling of partiality to
Government. It cannot be urged in defence that the accused had failed in his endeavour. If the
attempt is made, the accused cannot shelter him behind the fact that those to whom he may
have addressed himself have either been too discreet or too temperate to act upon the obvious
meaning of the teaching. To determine whether an attempt to commit offence mentioned in
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is committed by the publication of certain Articles, it
 17

is necessary to determine what is their meaning what is the innuendo they convey, and what
is the correct meaning, if any they have. The probable or Natural effect of the words used
must then be decided, that is whether they are calculated to bring into hatred or disloyalty or
enmity. Shouting objectionable slogans in a Meeting such as ‘Destroy the dishonest
Government’ a ‘long live bloody revolution ‘is seditious within the meaning of Sedition.
Sedition embraces all those practices whether by words, deed or writing, which are calculated
to subvert the Government. There is no general rule can be laid down that criticism of the
subordinate officials of the Government and not of the Government itself is seditious.
3.3 Alteration of the Law by the Constitution of India in Section 124.
When the Constitution came into existence in 26 January 1950. In it there is an Article
which is related to freedom of speech and expression came under 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution. According to which sub Section (2) enacts, nothing in sub clause (a) of clause
(1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the state
from making any law relating to, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter
which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to
overthrow, the state. Article 13 of the Constitution enacts as follows: -
1. All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistence with the provision of this part, shall to
the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
2. The State shall not make any Law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this part and any Law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the
contravention be void.
3. In this Article unless the context otherwise requires-
a. Law includes any ordinance, order, By-law, rule, Regulation, Notification, custom or
usage, having in the territory of India the Force of Law;
b. ‘Laws in Force’ includes Laws Passed or made by a legislature or other Competent
authority in the territory of India before the Commencement of this Constitution and
not Previously appealed, Notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not
be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
To avert the constitutional difficulty as a result of the above referred case. The
constitutional 1st (Amendment) Act, 1951 added in Art 19 (2) two words of widest import,
wiz. “in the interest of” “public order”. Thereby including the legislative restrictions on
freedom of speech and expression. The advocates of the other view held that section 124-A,
of I.P.C is constitutional and is not in contravention of Art 19(1) (a) as it is saved by the
expression “in the interest of public order” in Art 19(2). It has been stated that the expression
in the interest of public order is of wider connotation, and includes not only the Acts which
are likely to disturb public order but something more than that. In accordance with this
interpretation, section 124-A, I.P.C. has been held intra vires of the constitution. This view
found blessings from the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (supra)
wherein it was held that any law which is enacted in the interest of public order may be saved
from the voice of constitutional invalidity.
 18

The court had further observed in the said case that the right guaranteed under Art 19(1)
(a) is subject to such reasonable restriction as would come within the purview of clause (2),
to Art 19 which comprises (a) security of the State, (b) friendly relations with foreign states,
(c) public order, (d) decency or morality, etc. with reference to the constitutionality of section
124-A, of the I.P.C, as to how far they are consistent with the requirements of clause (2) of
Art 19 with particular reference to security of state and public order, the section, it must be
noted penalizes any spoken or written words or science or visible representations, etc, which
have the effect of bringing, or which attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite or
attempt to excite disaffection towards “the government established by law” has to be
distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration.
“Government established by law” is the visible symbol of the state would be in jeopardy,
where the government established by law is subverted.
 19

Chapter IV: Preventing protests: Government tool in Sedition laws.

Every case of sedition has a common defence that the action was done in pursuance of
Article 19(1)(a). It was his freedom of speech under which he said those statements. But what
people are not aware of is Article 19(2) which states that a speech or an act should not be
something which can invoke or incite others against the state. If something is capable of
causing unrest in the nation, it can’t be defended by using Article 19(1) (a). This act which
incites others to destroy the unity and integrity of the nation will be termed as sedition .It
would not be called free speech.
4.1 Compatibility of Sedition with a Democracy.
The registering of a case of Sedition against Ms Arundhati Roy, Syed Ali Gilani etc. for
their speeches made at a convention on ‘Azadi the Only Way’ for Kashmir is bound to appall
all who are committed to the core values of democracy and human rights. It hardly makes any
difference that the case has been registered on the direction of a court and not by the police.
So long as this anti- democratic law, which is the legacy of the colonial British Government,
is retained by the Republic of India, the courts are bound to implement them. However, a
plain reading of the provision on Sedition under section 124A of the I.P.C. makes it clear
that such laws have no place in a democracy. It provides that ‘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 imprisonment for life, to
which fine may be added’ It is obvious that it is only an authoritarian Government -foreign or
local- which can make excitement or disaffection against a Government a criminal offence.
Under a democratic system, it is the normal function of the opposition parties to create
disaffection against the Government with a view to oust it from power by mobilising popular
support and replace it if possible. Even groups and individuals aggrieved by the policies of a
Government have the right to create public opinion against it and campaign to dethrone it.
The whole process of opposing the existing Government in a democracy is to create
disaffection against it by drawing attention to its short- comings like corruption, sell out to
certain interests – Indian or foreign-, incompetence or alleged anti-people character. Slogans
like ‘Sadi-gali Sarkar ko Ek Dhakka Aur Do’ (Give a final push to this rotten Government’)
‘Singhasan Khali Karo ki Janta Aati Hai (Vacate the throne, the people are coming’- i.e., to
occupy it) are out and out Acts of Sedition Under the Present Law under section 124 - A.
4.2 Right to Free Speech in a Censored Democracy.
The Constitution (first amendment) act, 1951, two changes were introduced in the
provision relating to freedom of speech and expression. Firstly, it considerably widened the
latitude for legislative restriction on free speech by adding further grounds therefore;
 20

secondly it provides that the restriction imposed on the freedom of speech must be
reasonable. It is to be seen now, whether Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is in
conflict with the amended clause (2) of Article 19 or not. There appears to be three different
views on the question as reflected by the decision of the courts. These can be summarized as
under:
1. Section 124-A Indian Penal Code is ultra vires the Constitution in as much as it infringes
the fundamental right of freedom of speech in Article 19(1) (a) and is not saved by the
expression ‘in the interest of public order’19.
2. Section 124-A is not void because the expression ‘in the interests of public order’ has a
wider connotation and should not be confined to only one aspect of public order to
violence. It has a much wider content, and embraces such action as undermines the
authority of Government by bringing it into hatred or contempt or by creating
disaffection towards it. From this point of view Section 124-A Indian Penal Code is
saved under clause (2) of Article 1920.
3. Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is partly void and partly valid. In Indra Mani
Singh v. State of Manipur21 it has been held that Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code
which seeks to impose restriction on exciting mere disaffection or attempting to cause
disaffection is ultra vires, but the restriction imposed on the right to free speech which
makes it punishable to excite hatred or contempt towards the Government established by
law in India, is covered by clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and can be
held intra vires.
Whether restriction under Article 19(2) may be imposed in the interest of public or not has
been clarified by the Supreme Court, it held that restriction imposed must have a reasonable
and rational relation with the restriction imposed must have a reasonable and traditional
relation with the public order, otherwise it would be invalid22.
Freedom of speech and expression enjoys special position as far India is concerned. The
importance of freedom of expression and speech can be easily understand by the fact that
preamble of Constitution itself ensure itself ensures to all citizens inter alia, liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. The Constitutional significance of the freedom
of speech consists in the preamble of Constitution and is transformed as fundamental and
human right in Article 19(1) (a) as ‘freedom of speech and expression’. Explaining the scope
of freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court has said that the words ‘freedom of
speech and expression’ must be broadly constructed to include the freedom to circulate one’s
view by words of mouth or in writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities 23. Freedom of
speech and expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and opinions freely
by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes the

19
Ram Nandan v. State ,A.I.R 1959 ALL.101.
20
Debi Soren v. State, A.I.R 1954 Patna 254
21
Indra Mani Singh v. state of Manipur A.I.R 1955 Manipur 9.
22
V.k Javali v. State of Mysore, A.I.R 1966 SC 1387.
23
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1950 SC 124
 21

expression of one’s idea through any communicable medium or visible representation, such
as gesture, sign, and the like24.
Moreover, it is important to note that liberty of one must not offend the liberty of others.
Patanjali Shastri, J. in A.K. Gopalan case, observed, ‘man as a rational being desires to do
Many things, but in a Civil society his desires by other individuals’. It therefore includes the
right to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other Communication
channel for example the radio and this television. Every citizen this country therefore has the
right to air his or their views through the printing and or the electronic media subject of
course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In sum the
fundamental principle involved here is the people’s right to know. Freedom of speech and
expression should, therefore receive generous support from all those who believe in the
participation of people in the administration. We can see the guarantee of freedom of speech
and expression under followings heads.
The freedom of speech and expression includes liberty to propagate not one’s view only. It
also includes the right to propagate or publish the view of other people 25. Otherwise this
freedom would not include the freedom of press. Freedom of speech and expression has four
broad special purposes to serve:
1. It helps an individual to attain self –fulfilment.
2. It assists in the discovery of truth.
3. It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making.
4. It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable
balance between stability and social change. All the members of society should be
able to form their own beliefs and communication them freely to others.
The continued existence of the government established by law is an essential condition of
the stability of the state. Hence, any act within the meaning of section 124-A, which has the
effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or
creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of
disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency
to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any
written or spoken words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government
by violent means, which are compendiously included in the term ‘revolution’, have been
made penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate clearly that
strong words under lawful means used to express disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with the view to their improvement or alteration would not come within the
section. Similarly, comments, however, strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of
actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to
cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to
Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the
measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the
people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of the those acts or measure by lawful means
24
Lowell v. Griffin. (1939) 303 US 444.
25
Srinivas v. State of Madras A.I.R 1931 MAD .70.
 22

that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitation
to public disorder or the use of violence.
The law of sedition as codified in India represents in substance. The English law of
sedition. In a charge under section 124-A of the penal code, the prosecution must prove to the
hilt that the intention of the writer or the speaker, whoever he may be, is to bring into hatred
or contempt or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by
law in British India. The essence of the crime of sedition, therefore, consists in the intention
with which the language is used and what is rendered punishable by section 124-A of the
penal code is the intentional attempt, successful or otherwise, the rouse as against
Government the feelings enumerated in the section, a mere tendency in an Art. to promote
such feelings is not sufficient to justify a conviction; in other words, the prosecution must
bring home to the accused that his intention was as is described in the section itself 26. The
essence of the offence of sedition under section 124-A, I.P.C., is the intention with which the
language of a speech is used and that intention has to be judged primarily from the language
itself. In forming an opinion as to the character of speech charged as sedition, the speech
must be looked at and taken as a whole, freely and fairly, without giving undue weight to
isolated passages and without pausing upon an objectionable sentence here or a strong word
there, and, in judging of the intention of the speaker, each passage, should be considered in
connection with the others and with the general drift of the whole 27. The provisions of section
124-A, I.P.C. are very wide and in strict law they would cover everything that amounts to
defamation of the Govt. excluding any criticism in good faith of any particular measures or
acts of administration. If the Govt. comes into Court and asks for a decision from a judge or a
Magistrate whether particular conduct is or is not within the terms of section 124-A, the
Court must express a perfectly fair opinion as between the parties apart from its own ideas of
political expediency and the terms of section 124-A, are so wide that much they may
generally be regarded as justifiable speech would come within its terms.
Even today, sedition law is being used as a weapon to curb any political dissent and also
any alternate political philosophy which contradicts the ideology of the ruling party. Binayak
Sen, Arundhati Roy, Dr R. Rati Rao, Bharat Desai, Manoj Shinde, V Gopalaswamy are few
of the many names that appear when one looks through the recent history of how sedition law
is being applied. These individuals merely expressed their perspective on specific activities of
the government, which was far from inciting violence against the state. When one looks at
these prosecutions, it appears that a divide exists between Supreme Court, High Courts and
District Courts. Judges in various courts neglect the interpretation of sedition laws given by
Supreme Court, which results in various instances of miscarriage of justice. This issue is
graver at the level of the district courts and the investigating authorities. There emerge a lot
of cases where the accused is either granted bail or acquitted by High Court, who was earlier
sentenced guilty by trail court for ‘sedition’. The punishment of the person charged with
sedition starts with the legal process. Despite the fact that they are acquitted at the end, they
have to undergo a long legal process, which in itself is a punishment for those who dare to
express their opinion against the activities of the government.
26
Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 698)
27
Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore, (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265.
 23

It seems as if the upper echelons of the judiciary are totally disconnected from the lower
echelons, with the continuous harassment of individuals by lower courts and the investigating
authorities for no reason in law. Case of Binayak Sen is one of the most noticeable examples
of the arbitrary nature of sedition laws.

Chapter V: Conclusion
A colonial legacy like sedition, has no place in a democracy like India. It expects citizen to
have popular affection towards state and not to exhibit hatred or hostility towards the
government which is established by law. The ability of sedition laws to supress dissenting
political opinions and citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression makes a strong case
for abolishing sedition laws in India. Existence of these laws is impermissible in a democracy
like India. The arbitrary use of these laws despite the Supreme Court’s order to narrow the
scope of sedition, itself proves that the existence of sedition laws on the statute books
threatens the democratic values. The need of the hour is to bring changes to sedition laws in
tune with most modern democratic frameworks like England and New Zealand.
The punishment for sedition under section 124(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
absolutely disproportionate to the charge. The analysis of punishment for other similar
charges under IPC makes this disparity obvious. Chapter 6 of IPC (Offences against the
State) includes Sedition in contrast with crimes like ‘unlawful assembly’ and ‘rioting’ that are
included in chapter 8 (offences against Public Tranquillity).Promoting enmity between
religious groups is punishable under section 153(A) of IPC by a maximum imprisonment of
three years and under section 153(B) imputations prejudicial to national integration is
punishable by a maximum imprisonment of three years, and even if the offense is committed
in a place of worship, the maximum punishment will still be five years imprisonment.
Similarly, the quantum of punishment outlined in the IPC against public tranquillity are not
as harsh as compared to sedition. For example, the punishment for unlawful assembly under
section 143 of IPC is imprisonment of maximum six months. The inordinate nature of the
punishment for sedition under section 124(A) of IPC makes it very difficult for the accused to
get bail and has immensely serious consequences for those convicted of sedition.
While it is important to retain the provisions relating to sedition, it must also be subject to
certain statutory safeguards. The researcher opines that such redrafting would provide the
most efficient solution to the problem caused by the misuse of sedition law. It is expected that
the section in the proposed form would adequately serve this purpose.
Democracy is meaningless without freedoms and sedition as interpreted and applied by the
police and Governments is a negation of it. But, before the law loses its importance, the
Supreme Court, which is the protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens has to step in
and evaluate the law and could declare Section 124A unconstitutional if necessary. The word
‘sedition’ should be applied with caution. It is like a cannon that ought not to be used to
shoot a mouse; but the arsenal also demands possession of cannons, mostly as a deterrent,
and on occasion for shooting.
 24

“No democracy permits right to Sedition” the right to secede cannot be accepted in the
grab of fight to free speech. The right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution cannot be
used against the Country.157 BJP takes strong exception to the demand for secession of
Kashmir made a seminar in New Delhi in which Hard-line Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah
Geelani and other Kashmiri separatists as well as Naxal and Kalistani sympathizers had come
together to demand independence for Kashmir. It is shocking that the Central Government
chose to look the other way while ‘Unacceptable’ views were aired in the Name of freedom
of speech. In a democracy the right to secede cannot be accepted in the grab the cunt of right
to free speech. The right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution cannot be used against
the country. The Central Government should not forget that there are two responsibilities and
obligation of the state to prevent such events and to punish the offenders.
In cases under Section 124-A, I.P.C., the Courts have not to see the effect on the mind of
the people and they are concerned with the construction of the speech, and the speech has to
be taken as a whole and not just in pieces. A man may criticize or comment upon any
measure or act of the Govt. and freely express his opinion upon it. He may express
condemnation but so long as he confines himself to that he will be protected, but if he goes
beyond that he must pay the penalty for it. The question of intention is always an important
factor in such cases28. Authorship of seditious material alone is not the gist of offence of
sedition. Distribution, circulation of seditious material may also be sufficient29.
BJP is outraged by open Anti-India sentiments and demand for Sedition at the seminar
and finds these as absolutely unacceptable. It seems that the centre has abdicated its duty to
protect the Unity and integrity of the Country by allowing the function to take place in which
anti-India voices were raised. Democracy and freedom of speech and expression does not
give anybody a right to demand Sedition. No democracy permits right to Sedition. But some
misconceived representative of civil society has abolished it as free speech. However the
right to freedom and speech and expression is a fundamental right but it has certain
restriction. Restrictions have been imposed on the freedom of speech and expression by
Article 51-A defining fundamental duties of a citizen (42nd amendment in 1976). Under
Article 51-A, no one should in exercise of the freedom of expression or the press do any of
the following acts:
1. To disparage the Constitution its ideals and institutions, the national flag or the National
Anthem,
2. To Undermine the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India,
3. To disrupt the spirit of Common brotherhood among all the people,
4. To Insult the Rich heritage of our Composite Culture.
If anybody speaks against the Sovereignty of India, Such exercise comes Under Penal
Law offences against State.

28
Vishambhar Dayal v. Emperor; AIR 1941 Oudh 33
29
Raghuvir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149
 25

Bibliography
1. The Law Commission, Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper No 72)
(1977);
2. The Law Commission, Criminal Law: Report on Criminal Libel (Cm 9618, 1985).
3. Written evidence submitted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, available at:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/362w
e14.htm> accessed 18 March 2020
4. Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, 2007, available at
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/ 0B8AD487-C576-4BCE-9A31-
FD96362817F 7/56750/1523CrimesSedition3.pdf
5. Walter Russel Donogh, A treatise on the law of sedition and cognate offences in
British India, available at
http://archive.org/stream/onlawofsedition00dono#page/n23/mode/2up (Last visited on
February 26, 2020).
6. Edmund C. Cox, Police and Crime in India available at http://archive.
org/stream/policecrimeinind00coxerich#page/86/mode/2up (Last visited on February
26, 2020).
7. A.G., Noorani Indian Political Trials, New Delhi: OUP, 2009.
8. W.R. Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British
India, (Calcutta: Thakker, Spink and Co., 1911).
9. Aravind Ganachari, ‘Combating Terror of Law in Colonial India: The Law of
Sedition and the Nationalist Response’ in M. Vandalos, G.K. Lotts, H.M. Teixera, A.
Karzai & J. Haig, Boca Raton (eds.), Engaging Terror: A Critical and
Interdisciplinary Approach (Florida: Brown Walker Press, 2009)
10. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Justice Y.V.
Chardrachud & V.R. Manohar eds., 31st ed. 2006).