Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Law of Sedition (S. 124A IPC)
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code defines sedition. According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 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, a shall be punished with imprisonment for life, 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 of 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 or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 1 sets out the scope of disaffection and Explanation 2 and 3 state what is not considered sedition. The word sedition however does not occur in the body of the section. It finds place only as a marginal note. The section places absolutely on the same footing the successful excitation of disaffection and the unsuccessful attempt to excitation. The offence consists in making use of any means for the purpose of bringing Government into hatred or contempt.
- The offence may be committed by means of words spoken, written, or by visible representations such as pictures, or by dramatic performances even in dumb show, where no words are spoken, where the feelings of the audience are excited, any gestures and motions and dramatic actions of the performers.
- Hatred implies an ill will, while contempt implies a low opinion. The hatred and contempt in order to be punishable under this section must relate to the hatred and contempt of the State, or of the established form Government
- Explanation 1 to Section 124A does not define the word disaffection. It only talks about its circumference by including disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Disaffection is never used for individuals, and is always used for the government.
- The printer and publisher of a seditious act are also liable for sedition under Section 124A. It is not open for the publisher of seditious matter to contend that it is not my work. The publisher is prima facie liable for whatever material appears in his paper and if he seeks to get rid of that liability, the onus lies on him. What is necessary for him to establish is that the article published was published without his knowledge or authority or consent or without any acquiescence or intention on his part. Mere absence is insufficient to state in answer for the charge.
Essential Ingredients of Sedition:
Following are the essential ingredients of this section:
- Bringing to attempting to bring into hatred; or
- Exciting or attempting to excite disaffection against the Government of India;
- Such act or attempt may be done (a) by words, either spoken or written, or (b) by any signs, or (c) visible representation; and
- The act must be intentional
The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable non-compoundable, and tribal by Court of Session.
The first recorded state trial for sedition is that of Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose, ILR (1892) 19 Cal 35 case the Court, in its much debated judgment, laid down the distinction between ‘disaffection’ and ‘disapprobation’. Disaffection was defined as the use of spoken or written words to create a disposition in the minds of those to whom the words were addressed, not to obey the lawful authority of the government, or to resist that authority. It was also observed that: “It is sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used are calculated to excite feelings of ill-will against the Government, and to hold it up to the hatred and contempt of the people, and that they were used with an intention to create such feeling.”
In Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112 case, allegations of sedition against Bal Gangadhar Tilak were first forwarded when the magazine Kesari published detailed reports of the proceedings that had taken place at the Shivaji Coronation Festival, during the celebration of which several patriotic lectures and speeches were delivered. It was alleged that these speeches made references to Shivaji’s call for Swarajya (independence) and alluded to the trials of the people under the British rule.42 Although the Coronation Ceremony in itself was peaceful, the weeks following the publication of the report on June 15, 1897, saw the murder of two eminent British officials. In perhaps one of the most comprehensive expositions of the law in colonial India, the Court, transcending the arguments from both sides, interpreted Section 124A mainly as exciting ‘feelings of disaffection’ towards the government, which covered within its ambit sentiments such as hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt, and all forms of ill-will. It expanded the scope of the offence by holding that it was not the gravity of the action or the intensity of disaffection, but the presence of feelings that was paramount and mere attempt to excite such feelings was sufficient to constitute an offence.
In Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, the Supreme Court explained meaning and content of sedition as a Sedition is a crime against society nearly allied to that of treason, and it frequently precedes treason by a short interval. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state, and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the Government and laws of the country. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of justice into contempt; and the very tendency of the sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. The court further observed: “Sedition” has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm, and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder.
Aseem Trivedi was charged with sedition under the Indian Penal Code as well as with violating the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and Section 66(A) of Information Technology Act, for displaying a number of cartoons at a public meeting organized by India Against Corruption on November 27, 2011, in Mumbai. Following an FIR lodged against him, he was arrested on September 8, 2012, and produced before a Metropolitan Magistrate. However, Trivedi refused to accept bail until the sedition charge was dropped. The judgment provided relief to the petitioner challenging the charge against the cartoonist. It further added- ‘A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comments, 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 judgment said, adding that the state Home Department must issue guidelines to the police, in the form of pre-conditions to the invoking of Sec 124 A only if words, signs or representations that bring the Government (Central or State) into hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the Government ‘must also be an incitement to violence or must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public disorder.’
Consitunality of Sedetion Law:
Article 19(1) (a) provides guarantee to every citizen freedom of speech and expression. That means every citizen of India can express their opinion freely. This right to freedom of speech and expression secures protection for severely censuring existing government structures, policies, actions and administrative schemes, coupled with protection for suggesting and recommending the required development of other systems. Freedom given under Article 19(1) (a) is not absolute one. Article 19(2) deals with the grounds of reasonable restrictions with regard to Article 19 (1) (a). Sedition has not been mentioned therein as one of the grounds justifying reasonable restrictions.
Now the question comes whether Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). However, this conflict between sedition and freedom of speech is not recent origin. The framers of the Constitution also have apprehended with the dilemma as to whether the word “sedition” should be used in Article 19(2) but finally they omitted it. It was witnessed that if they have the intention to insert it within Article 19 (2) they would have inserted it. Although, they decided not to use the word “sedition” in clause (2) but used the more general words which cover sedition and everything else also.
In Ram Nandan v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 All 101 case, 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.
In Kedarnath Das vs State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 case, the Supreme Court 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.
It can be noted that reasonable restrictions are provided under Article 19(2), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 121,122,123,131,141,143,153-A, Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, provide more than enough safeguards for acts likely to come under Sedition.
Conclusion:
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 be used to shoot a mouse; but the arsenal also demands possession of cannons, mostly as a deterrent, and on occasion for shooting.