1. Appeals challenging the constitutionality of Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., A.K.Sarkar, J.R.Mudholkar, N.Rajagopala Ayyangar, S.R.Dass, JJ.
Kedar Nath Singh: State Of West Bengal: State Of War Pradesh: State Of War Pradesh: Atitorney General For India
Versus
State Of Bihar: Mohd.Ishq Ilmi: Ram Nandan: Paras Nath Tripathi: State Of Bihar
Case No. : 124 , 126 of 1956,169 of 1957,124 of 1958 , 125 o
Date of Decision : 1/24/62
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala C.B. : Behari Gopal : Daphtary C.K. : Dapthary C.K. : Hussain S.Shaukat : Lal C.P. : Mathur G.C. : Prasad R.C. : Sen T.M. : Sharma Janardan : Sinha S.P. : Varma S.P.
Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, GOPAL BEHARI, JANARDAN SHARMA, R.C.Prasad, S.P.SINHA, S.P.Varma, S.SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, T.M.SEN
C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, GOPAL BEHARI, JANARDAN SHARMA, R.C.Prasad, S.P.SINHA, S.P.Varma, S.SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, T.M.SEN
Section 124A of the IPC is constitutional if interpreted to penalize only those acts involving an intention or tendency to incite violence or create public disorder, as such restrictions are reasonable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 124A and 505 - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) - Sedition - Constitutionality - Freedom of speech and expression - Reasonable restrictions - Public order - Security of the State - The offence of sedition under Section 124A is consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression if interpreted as involving an intention or tendency to create disorder, disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence (Paras 25, 26). 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 actions of the government without exciting feelings that generate an inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, do not constitute an offence under this section (Paras 25, 26).
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - When a provision of law can be construed in two ways, one making it consistent with the Constitution and another rendering it unconstitutional, the court will lean in favour of the former construction to save the law from invalidity (Paras 26, 27).
(C) Indian Penal Code - Section 505 - Provisions relating to statements conducing to public mischief are valid as they directly impact the security of the State or public order and fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution (Para 29).
Facts of the case:
Several appeals arose from convictions under sections relating to sedition and public mischief. In one instance, an individual was convicted for a speech criticizing the government and advocating for a revolution. In other instances, individuals were accused of advocating the use of violence to overthrow the government or organizing armed resistance. The lower courts had differing views on whether the law of sedition was void for violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the right to freedom of speech is fundamental, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the security of the State and public order. The law of sedition is valid provided it is limited to acts involving incitement to violence or the tendency to create public disorder.
Issues: Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are void in view of the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gist of the offence of sedition is the incitement to violence or the tendency to create public disorder. A literal interpretation of the section that penalizes mere disaffection without a link to violence would be unconstitutional. However, by construing the section to apply only to activities involving incitement to violence or public disorder, the law strikes a balance between individual rights and the interests of public order, thus falling within the permissible restrictions of Article 19(2).
Result: Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957 dismissed; Criminal Appeals 124-126 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 1 , 9 )
3. The court analyzed conflicting judicial views, concluding that sedition must involve incitement to violence or a tendency to create public disorder to be a reasonable restriction. (Para 18 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Section 124A is constitutional only if construed to penalize acts involving incitement to violence or a tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of public peace. (Para 26 , 27 )
5. One appeal dismissed; other appeals remanded to the High Court for orders based on the provided interpretation of the law. (Para 30 )
6. Is Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
Yes, provided it is construed to limit its application to acts involving an intention or tendency to create disorder, disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence, thereby qualifying as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
7. What constitutes the gist of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?
The gist is the incitement to violence or the tendency or intention to create public disorder by words that bring the government established by law into hatred or contempt. (Para 25 , 26 )
8. How should a court proceed if a statutory provision can be interpreted in both a constitutional and an unconstitutional manner?
The court should lean in favor of the construction that makes the provision consistent with the Constitution, limiting its application to avoid unconstitutionality. (Para 26 , 27 )
9. Are the provisions of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code valid under Article 19(2) of the Constitution?
Yes, because the constituent elements of the offence under Section 505 directly affect the security of the State or public order, constituting reasonable restrictions on free speech. (Para 29 )
SINHA, C.J.I.
(1) 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. Taghra (Monghyr) by speaking the words, to wit, (a) To-day the dogs of the C. I. D are loitering round Barauni. Many official dogs are 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 Kishanas 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 downtrodden people of India. (d) It will be a mistake to expect anything from the Congress relers. They (Congress rulers) have set up V. Bhave in the midst of the people by causing him wear a langoti in order to divert the peoples 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 advice his agents, `you should understand it the people cannot be deceived by this illusion and fraud of Vinova`. I shall vinova not to become a puppet in the of the Congress men. These persons, understand the Yojna-of Vinova, realise that Vinova is an agent to 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 Congress men 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 committedan offence punishable under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly.-That you on the 26th day of May, 1953 at village Barauni, P. S.
