Criminal Liability For Sedition Against The State

15 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🔹 Meaning of Sedition (Section 124A IPC)

Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines sedition as:

“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 up to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

🔹 Essentials of Sedition

To constitute sedition, the following elements must be proved:

Actus Reus (Act):
Words (spoken/written), signs, or representations must be made.

Mens Rea (Intention):
The intention must be to bring hatred, contempt, or excite disaffection against the Government.

Object:
The “Government established by law in India” — not an individual or political party.

Effect:
The act must have a tendency or intention to cause public disorder, violence, or disruption of law and order.

🔹 Constitutional Validity

The section has often been challenged as violating Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression. However, reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) allow the State to restrict speech in the interest of public order, security, or sovereignty.

🔹 Important Case Laws on Sedition

Below are six landmark cases that define and clarify the scope of sedition in India.

1. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)

(22 Bom 112)

Facts:
Tilak, a freedom fighter, published articles in Kesari that criticized British rule and glorified the killing of British officials.

Held:
The Bombay High Court held that even if the writing did not incite rebellion directly, it was seditious if it attempted to bring hatred or contempt against the Government.

Importance:
This case broadened the scope of sedition. It emphasized intention to cause disaffection as sufficient — even if there was no actual violence.

2. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor (1942)

(AIR 1942 FC 22)

Facts:
The accused criticized government officials and policies in strong terms but did not advocate violence.

Held:
The Federal Court held that sedition requires incitement to disorder or violence.
Mere criticism of the Government is not sedition.

Importance:
This case narrowed the interpretation — it distinguished legitimate dissent from incitement.

3. King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947)

(AIR 1947 PC 82)

Facts:
The Privy Council overruled the Niharendu Dutt case.

Held:
They restored the broad interpretation — stating that even speech causing disaffection or disloyalty (without actual violence) can be sedition.

Importance:
Reintroduced the colonial, restrictive view, which continued until the Supreme Court’s intervention post-Independence.

4. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

(AIR 1962 SC 955)

Facts:
Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party, made speeches criticizing the Congress government, calling it exploitative.

Issue:
Whether Section 124A violates freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but narrowed its scope.

Key Principles Laid Down:

Only speech or acts that incite violence or public disorder are punishable.

Mere criticism of the Government is not sedition unless accompanied by incitement to violence.

Importance:
This is the leading case — it balances freedom of expression with public order.

5. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)

(AIR 1995 SC 1785)

Facts:
After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, Balwant Singh and another raised slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” outside a cinema hall. No violence or disturbance occurred.

Held:
The Supreme Court acquitted them, ruling that casual slogan shouting without incitement to violence is not sedition.

Importance:
It reaffirmed Kedar Nath Singh — mere words, without a tendency to disturb public order, do not amount to sedition.

6. Arun Jaitley v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016)

(Allahabad High Court)

Facts:
Arun Jaitley, in a blog post, criticized a judicial decision (NJAC case). A complaint was filed for sedition.

Held:
The Court held that criticism of a judgment or government policy cannot amount to sedition unless it incites hatred or violence.

Importance:
It reaffirmed that free criticism and political dissent are protected by Article 19(1)(a).

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

(Supreme Court of India)

Facts:
Journalist Vinod Dua was accused of sedition for criticizing the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, holding that journalists are entitled to criticize the government.
Unless speech directly incites violence or public disorder, it cannot be sedition.

Importance:
Reaffirmed that sedition law cannot be used to silence dissent or press freedom.

🔹 Key Principles from Case Law

Principle	Explanation
1. Criticism ≠ Sedition	Mere criticism of government policy is not punishable.
2. Incitement Test	There must be an intention or tendency to incite violence or create public disorder.
3. Freedom of Speech	Section 124A must be interpreted in harmony with Article 19(1)(a) & 19(2).
4. Protection for Dissent	Peaceful protest and dissent are part of democracy.
5. Misuse Caution	The law should not be used to suppress legitimate opposition or journalism.