- Section 124 A in Chapter VI of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with the Offence ‘Sedition’. ‘Offences against the State’ under Chapter VI relates sedition.
- The word ‘Sedition’ is not mentioned or cited in 124A as it is. The Section reads as follows:
- 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, 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, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
a. Explanation 1.—the expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. (feeling or infidelity and hostility)
b. 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
c. Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or hatred, do not constitute an offence under this section.
- 124A was not part of the Original Indian Penal Code of 1860. It was introduced in 1870
- The section was amended by the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act (IV of 1898.). As a result of the amendment, the single explanation to the section was replaced by three separate explanations as they stand now.
- The maximum punishment for the Offence is Life Imprisonment
- The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by a Court of Sessions.
- Many Indian freedom fighters including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were charged with Sedition during freedom Struggle.
- The first case in India that arose and took fire under this section is known as the Bangobasi case (Queen-Empress v. Jagendra Chunder Bose).
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted under this Section and sent to Mandalay, Burma from 1908 to 1914 for defending the Indian revolutionaries and called for immediate Swaraj or self-rule in his newspaper ‘Kesari’ (Queen Empress Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897))
- In 1959 Allahabad High Court declared that S.124A was ultra vires to Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- The above decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Case.
- In Kedar Nath Case, the Constitution Bench had read down Section 124A. It was upheld by construing it narrowly and stating that the offence would only be complete if the words complained of have a tendency of creating public disorder by violence.
- In Kedra Singh Case it is cleared that comments, however strongly worded, expressing condemnation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feeling which generate the inclination to cause public disorder and confusion by acts of violence, would not be penal.
- In Balwant Singh And Anr v. State of Punjab , Supreme Court held that the casual raising of the Slogans like Khalistan Zindabad etc once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India.
- In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court warned the Courts against the casual approach in invoking this section. It is held that ‘mechanical order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and to promote enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not lightly hampered with’.
Best Advocate in Chandigarh High Court – about this expression The relation of B&B Associates LLP and law is an old one. Since 1982, the members have been practicing laws. Over this journey of many years, we’ve witnessed many changes in the structure of society, the laws, the legal practice, the client-attorney relation, and most […]
Drug use by athletes has been issue of controversy for many years. Athletes and performers often use artificial stimulants to give them a physical and mental advantage. The use of performance enhancing drugs can be traced to the ancient Olympic Games where fame and fortune were rewarded for athletic success and the same is practiced […]
Section 403 of IPC defines and prescribes punishment for criminal misappropriation. It applies in the cases wherein the possession of property has been innocently acquired but from subsequent intention or knowledge, the retention becomes wrongful, then it amounts to criminal misappropriation. Section 403 Indian Penal Code (IPC) Reads as follows: Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts […]