Sedition vs. Freedom of Speech

Last year the sedition law became an extremely hot topic for discourse amongst media houses, political parties, liberals and intellectuals; courtesy of a protest held at a prominent university of India. The slogans raised, the words used, were termed seditious by the police and a student leader was arrested. While one may have contrasting views as to what constitutes sedition, it is imperative that we know what it actually is in the eyes of law. Sedition was primarily part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. So it’s a fact that it is a British made law from the colonial period. At the time of the making of our Constitution, many of our Constitution makers held the view that since it is a British law which was used for convicting our freedom fighters, it should be done away with. However, that did not happen and Sec. 124-A is still a part of the IPC in force. Sec. 124-A of the IPC states, “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, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.” Since the time the Constitution came into force, there are conflicting opinions as to whether or not the section violates Art.-19(1) of the Constitution. According to Art.-19(1)(a); “All citizens shall have right to freedom of speech and expression” As we know that the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that is guaranteed to every citizen. As such, fundamental rights take precedence over any other provision of the constitution or any other act in force; so any law in violation of any fundamental right will be struck down. No right is absolute and it is the same with fundamental rights. The right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to some reasonable restrictions. According to Art. 19(2) state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India The security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. What restriction will be a reasonable restriction will depend on the time and situation and also on the different facts and circumstances of each case. The meaning and scope of Sec. 124-A have been illustrated by the Supreme Court in the case Kedarnath vs. the State of Bihar. The court expressly stated that a literal interpretation of the section was not possible as it would render Art.-19(1)(a) unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held the view that Sedition was a crime against the state and the aim of Sec.124-A was to secure the government established by law from being destabilised because “the continued existence of the Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State”. The court further delved into what constitutes sedition. It explained that any act which had the effect of subverting the government or any attempt to do so, or any act that incites enmity against the government and has the tendency to disrupt public order and cause violence would be seditious. Thus the essential elements of sedition are: Any act which subverts or attempts to subvert the govt. Any act which incites or has the tendency to incite violence against the govt. thus disturbing public order and stability of the state. It is evident that Sec. 124-A of the IPC is constitutionally valid as Art.-19(2) provides us grounds on which the right to freedom of speech and expression can be restricted. These grounds of security and stability of the state and maintenance of public order are the grounds on which a person can be convicted of Sedition. Thus Sedition and freedom of speech are not in contradiction to one another and can mutually co-exist under the provisions of the Constitution.

Sedition vs. Freedom of Speech

The meaning and scope of Sec. 124-A have been illustrated by the Supreme Court in the case Kedarnath vs. the State of Bihar. The court expressly stated that a literal interpretation of the section was not possible as it would render Art.-19(1)(a) unconstitutional.

Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page
Tags
Freedom of Speech Intellectuals IPC Kedar Nath Vs State of Bihar Sec. 124-A sedition

NIS

The meaning and scope of Sec. 124-A have been illustrated by the Supreme Court in the case Kedarnath vs. the State of Bihar. The court expressly stated that a literal interpretation of the section was not possible as it would render Art.-19(1)(a) unconstitutional.

Previous page 1 2 3 4 5Next page TagsFreedom of Speech Intellectuals IPC Kedar Nath Vs State of Bihar Sec. 124-A sedition

NIS

Related Articles

Ex-Bureaucrats nurturing Policy Specialists

KGMU Organizes Free Orthodontic Awareness and Dental Checkup Camp on World Orthodontic Day

YouTube Marketing Services in Uttar Pradesh with YTL Courses

PM Narendra Modi ‘directs’ ISRO to land man on moon by 2040

Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page
Tags
Freedom of Speech Intellectuals IPC Kedar Nath Vs State of Bihar Sec. 124-A sedition