1. Appeals challenging the constitutionality of Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code relative to the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th January, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1957.
Kedar Nath Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
with
Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1956.
State of U.P. (In all the appeals), Appellant
Versus
(1) Mohd. Ishq Ilmi (In Cr. A. No. 124 of 58)
(2) Ram Nandan (In Cr. A. No. 125 of 58) and
(3) Paras Nath Tripathi (In Cr. A. No. 126 of 58), Respondents.
The Attorney-General for India (on Notice by the Court) (In all the tour appeals).
Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1957 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. R. G. Prasad, Advocate, for Respondent.
In Cr. Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958.
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (M/s. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates, with him), for Appellant (In All the Appeals); Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior-Advocates (M/s. Gopal Behari and S. Shaukat Hussain, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
In Cr. A. No. 124 of 58.
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. S. P. Varma and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Attorney-General (In all the four appeals).
Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC are constitutional if interpreted to penalize only those acts that incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder, as such restrictions are reasonable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution to protect the security of the State and public order.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 124A and 505 - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Constitutionality of the law of sedition - Freedom of speech and expression - Reasonable restrictions - Public order and security of the State - The offence of sedition is consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression if interpreted as requiring incitement to violence or the intention or tendency to create public disorder. Strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means, or comments expressing disapprobation of administrative actions without exciting feelings that generate an inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, do not constitute an offence. (Paras 24, 25, 26)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - When a provision of law can be construed in one way to make it consistent with the Constitution and in another way to render it unconstitutional, the Court will lean in favour of the construction that maintains its constitutional validity. (Paras 26, 27)
(C) Indian Penal Code - Section 505 - Provisions relating to statements conducing to public mischief are valid as the constituent elements of the offence directly affect the security of the State or public order, thereby falling within the ambit of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). (Para 29)
Facts of the case:
Several appeals were filed challenging convictions under the law of sedition and public mischief. In one case, a person was convicted for a speech criticizing the government, calling officials derogatory names, and advocating for a revolution to establish a government of the poor. In other cases, individuals were convicted for speeches advocating the use of violence and the organization of a volunteer army to resist the government. The constitutionality of the penal provisions was challenged on the ground that they were inconsistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the penal provisions are constitutional provided they are limited to acts involving the intention or tendency to create disorder, disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence. The court held that the law strikes a correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order when it prevents activities with a pernicious tendency to create public disorder.
Issues: Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code have become void in view of the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government established by law is the visible symbol of the State, and its subversion jeopardizes the stability of the State. To ensure the law remains within the permissible limits of Article 19(2), the court adopted the interpretation that the gist of the offence of sedition is the incitement to violence or the tendency to create public disorder. By limiting the application of the section to acts involving such tendencies, the restriction is deemed reasonable in the interests of the security of the State and public order.
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1957 dismissed; Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958 remanded to the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are void for violating Article 19(1)(a) or constitute reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court analyzed the evolution of sedition law, distinguishing between mere criticism of government measures and incitement to violence or public disorder. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Section 124A is constitutional only when limited to acts involving incitement to violence or the intention or tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of peace. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
5. One appeal dismissed and others remanded to the High Court for determination in light of the interpreted limitation on the application of the impugned sections. (Para 30 )
6. Is Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code consistent with the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
Yes, provided it is construed to penalize only acts involving incitement to violence or the intention or tendency to create public disorder, making it a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) in the interest of public order. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. Does strong criticism of government measures or administrative actions constitute the offence of sedition under Section 124A?
No, comments expressing disapprobation of government measures or actions with a view to lawful alteration, without exciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection leading to violence or public disorder, do not constitute an offence. (Para 14 , 24 , 26 )
8. Are the provisions of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code constitutionally valid?
Yes, because the constituent elements of the offences under Section 505—relating to mutiny, public alarm, or inciting class conflict—directly affect the security of the State or public order, falling within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). (Para 29 )
9. How does the court distinguish the Government established by law from the individuals administering it?
The Government established by law is the visible symbol of the State; its subversion jeopardizes the State's existence and stability, whereas criticizing the persons engaged in administration is a distinct matter. (Para 24 )
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : In these appeals the main question in controversy is whether Ss. 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code have become void in view of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The constitutionality of the provisions of S. 124A, which was mainly canvassed before us, is common to all the appeals, the facts of which may shortly be stated separately.
2. In Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957, the appellant is one Kedar Nath Singh, who was prosecuted before a Magistrate, 1st Class, at Begusarai, in the district of Monghyr, in Bihar. He framed the following charges against the accused person, which are set out in extenso in order to bring out the gravamen of the charge against him :
"First-That you on 26th day of May, 1953 at village Barauni, P. S. Teghra (Monghyr) by speaking the words to wit,
(a) To-day the dogs of the C. I. D. are loitering round Barauni. Many official dogs rare sitting even in this meeting. The people of India drove out the Britishers from this country and elected these Congress goondas to the gaddi and seated them on it. To-day these Congress goondas are sitting on the gaddi due to mistake of the people. When we drove out the Britishers, we shall strike and turn out these Congress goondas as well. These official dogs will also be, liquidated along with these Congress goondas. These Congress goondas are banking upon the American dollars and imposing various kinds of taxes on the people to-day. The blood of our brothers-mazdoors and Kisans-is being sucked. The capitalists and the zamindars of this country help these Congress goondas. These zamindars and capitalists will also have to be brought before the peoples court along with these Congress goondas.
(b) On the strength of the organisation and unity of Kisans and mazdoors the Forward Communists Party will expose the black deeds of the Congress goondas, who are just like the Britishers. Only the colour of the body has changed. They have to-day established a rule of lathis and bullets in the country. The Britishers had to go away from this land. They had aeroplanes, guns, bombs and other weapons with them.
(c) The Forward Communist party does not believe in the doctrine of vote itself. The party had always been believing in revolution and does so even at present. We believe in that revolution, which will come and in the flames of which the capitalists, zamindars and the Congress leaders of India, who have made it their profession to loot the country, will be reduced to ashes and on their ashes will be established a Government of the poor and the down-trodden people of India.
(d) It will be a mistake to expect anything from the Congress rulers. They (Congressrulers) have set up V. Bhave in the midst of the people by causing him wear a langoti in order to divert the people s attention from their mistakes. To-day Vinova is playing a drama on the stage of Indian politics. Confusion is being created among the people. I want to tell Vinova and advise his agents, you should understand it that the people cannot be deceived by this Yajna, illusion and fraud of Vinova. I shall advise Vinova not to become a puppet in the hands of Congressmen. Those persons, who understand the Yajna of Vinova, realise that Vinova is an agent of the Congress Government.
(e) I tell you that this Congress Government will do no good to you.
(f) I want to tell the last word even to the Congress Tyrants. You play with the people and ruin them by entangling them in the mesh of bribery, black-marketing and corruption. To-day the children of the poor are hankering for food and you Congressmen are assuming the attitude of Nawabs sitting on the chairs . . . .. .. . . . . .
brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt or excited or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in the Indian Union and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly-That you on the 26th day of Ma
