1.

Whether the criminalisation of sedition violates article 14, 19, and 21 of the
Bharatland Constitution?

1.1. Criminalisation of sedition violative of article 14 of the Bharatland Constitution?

Article 14 deals with the notion of ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’. It
exemplifies both negative and positive essence. Like ‘equality before law’ has the negative essence
and ‘equal protection of law’ has the positive.1 The absence of arbitrary power, which is the
primary component of the rule of law and the foundation of our entire constitutional system, is one
of the significant aspects of Article 14. Accordingly, the essential need for any legislative action to
be legitimate under Article 14 is non-arbitrariness. The Hon’ble court in the case of S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India2 has rightly reiterated that absence of arbitrary power as sine qua
non to rule of law with confined and defined discretion. In another case of E. P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu3 Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati has introduced
the doctrine of arbitrariness by contending that “Equality is the antithesis of
arbitrariness and they are soul enemies. Equality belongs to the rule of law in a republic and
arbitrariness belongs to the whims and fancies of an absolute monarch. If an act is arbitrary, it can
be held violative of Article 14” Hence, art. 14 instantly takes effect and nullifies any state action
that appears to be arbitrary when it comes from the legislature, the executive body or any, or any
other authority under art. 12.

The vague and overbroad language of Section 124A allows for selective prosecution based on
political motivations, often targeting government critics, journalists, activists, and dissenters. Such
arbitrary enforcement leads to unequal treatment, where certain individuals or groups are
disproportionately affected, violating the principles of equality and fairness under art. 14. Sedition
laws do not provide clear, objective criteria for determining what constitutes ‘disaffection’ against
the government. This vagueness leads to inconsistent and subjective application by law
enforcement agencies, further exacerbating inequality under the law. The Hon’ble supreme court in
the leading case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India4 has reiterated that laws should not be
arbitrary and must adhere to standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

1
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125.
2
AIR 1967 SC 1427.
3
1974 SCR (2) 348.
4
1978 AIR 597.
(Now the above statement have to be justified by mentioning the provision given in your moot
problem)

1.2. Violative of article 19 of the of the Bharatland Constitution?

Criticizing the government is a key aspect of freedom of speech in democracies, art. 19(1)(a)
provides the freedom of speech and expression, which permits the unrestricted expression of one’s
own or other’s thoughts, beliefs, etc. by visible representation or any other communicative medium.
Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in the interests of
sovereignty, integrity, public order, or security of the state. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar5 clarified that only speech that involve
‘incitement to violence’ or ‘intention or tendency to create public disorder’ would be considered
seditious. Furthermore, in another case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab6 wherein the accused
were charged with sedition for raising slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” after the assassination of
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The case involved the interpretation of the right to free speech under
Article 19(1)(a) and the ‘reasonable restrictions’ under art. 19(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court
acquitted the accused, holding that mere casual raising of slogans, unaccompanied by any overt acts
leading to public disorder, cannot be considered sedition. The Court emphasised that the right to
freedom of expression under art. 19(1)(a) cannot be curtailed unless there is a direct incitement to
violence.

Although primarily concerned with Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the case of
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India7 has broader implications for free speech. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court struck down section 66A for being vague and causing a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech. This
judgement indirectly impacted the interpretation of sedition laws, reinforcing the view that laws
restricting free speech must have clear definitions and be narrowly tailored to prevent misuse.

Also, the Right not to speak is also included under freedom of speech and expression. The same can
be inferred from the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala8

(Now the above statement have to be justified by mentioning the facts and provisions given in your
moot problem)

5
1962 AIR 955.
6
AIR 1976 SC 230.
7
AIR 2015 SC 1523.
8
1986 SCR (3) 518.
 LANDMARK CASE LAWS

4. Common Cause & Another v. Union of India (2016)

Context:
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought guidelines to prevent the misuse of the
sedition law.

Arguments:
The petitioners contended that sedition was being misused to curb free speech and
dissent, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court reiterated the need for strict adherence to the Kedar Nath Singh
principles, emphasising that sedition charges must only apply in cases involving incitement
to violence.

5. Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021)

Context:
The case involved sedition charges against journalist Vinod Dua for his critical
comments on the government’s handling of the COVID 19 pandemic.

Arguments:
The petitioner argued that his comments fell within the scope of fair criticism, protected
under Article 19(1)(a).

Ruling:
The Supreme Court quashed the sedition charges, reiterating the Kedar Nath principles
and holding that fair criticism of the government is not seditious unless it incites violence or
public disorder.

6. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)

Context: A fresh challenge was made to Section 124A on the grounds that it violated
Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Arguments:
The petitioners contended that the sedition law was vague, overbroad, and arbitrary, thus
violating Article 14 (Equality Before Law).
 They also argued that it had a chilling effect on free speech (Article 19) and, in some
cases, violated personal liberty under Article 21.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court, in an interim order, stayed the use of Section 124A and directed the
government not to register new cases under this provision until the constitutional validity
was reviewed.

Argument for Tashi and Ambar (Appellants)

Whether the criminalisation of sedition violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Bharatland
Constitution?
 1. Violation of Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression):
The criminalisation of sedition curtails the right to free speech guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a). The Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh (1962), upheld the constitutionality of
sedition, but with a narrow interpretation, allowing for only those acts that incite violence or
public disorder to fall under sedition. The present charges against Tashi and Ambar do not
meet this threshold.
The restriction imposed under Section 124A is not reasonable under Article 19(2), as it is
vague, overbroad, and susceptible to misuse, thereby creating a chilling effect on free
speech and expression.

2. Violation of Article 14 (Equality Before Law):

The law arbitrarily discriminates against speech that criticises the government, allowing
for subjective interpretations and selective prosecutions. This creates an unequal treatment
for individuals exercising their right to free speech. Such arbitrariness and lack of clear
guidelines are contrary to Article 14’s guarantee of equality and non-arbitrariness.

3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty):

The vague nature of the sedition law leads to unwarranted curtailment of personal
liberty. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that any
procedure that restricts personal liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable". The current
application of Section 124A against Tashi and Ambar is not reasonable or fair and hence
violates Article 21.

Argument for the Union of Bharatland (Respondents)

Whether the criminalisation of sedition violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Bharatland
Constitution?
 1. Sedition Law as a Reasonable Restriction under Article 19(2):
Sedition falls under reasonable restrictions on free speech as outlined in Article 19(2) of
the Bharatland Constitution, which allows for restrictions in the interest of sovereignty,
integrity, and public order. The Court in Kedar Nath Singh (1962) upheld Section 124A,
stating that it applies only to acts with a tendency to create public disorder or incite
violence. The present law, therefore, does not violate Article 19.

2. Article 14:
Section 124A of the BPC does not violate Article 14 as it is neither arbitrary or
discriminatory. The law provides clear criteria, and the Kedar Nath Singh judgement
narrows its application. The law has sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse, and its
application is subject to judicial review.

3. Article 21:
The sedition law is applied judiciously and does not infringe on personal liberty. The
procedure established by law for initiating sedition charges involves judicial scrutiny, thus
ensuring that it does not violate Article 21.