Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016

ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Autonomy Is As Autonomy Does- Law

of Sedition in India
Hetal Chavda
LL.M. Business laws.
Abstract : The dictionary meaning of sedition is
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against
the state. Its legal meaning is inciting violence
towards insurrection of established order and
lawful authority, including subversion of the
Constitution. Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code, which does use the word sedition, defines it
as any action, by words, signs or visible
representation, which brings or attempts to bring
into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to
excite disaffection towards a government
established by law. It is a draconian law from the
colonial era making such an act punishable with
imprisonment for life. The charge against those
arrested in JNU for sedition was simply not
sustainable even under the existing law, for reasons
set out by so many legal luminaries. It is also not
feasible in the turbulent politics of the Republic of
India, which is a strong, vibrant and participative
democracy. What is more, it seeks to negate the
very idea of universities, where freedom, inquiry,
questions, dissent and debate constitute the
essential foundations of learning that make for
good citizens in a democracy. Veterans have given
justified judgements in past cases but autonomy is
as autonomy does.
Key words: Law of sedition; article 124A and
article 19(1), Luminaries and Law
Origin of Sedition Law The origin of
sedition law in India is linked to the Wahabi
Movement of 19th century. This movement,
centred around Patna was an Islamic revivalist
movement, whose stress was to condemn any
change into the original Islam and return to its true
spirit. The movement was led by Syed Ahmed
Barelvi. The movement was active since 1830s but
in the wake of 1857 revolt, it turned into armed
resistance, a Jihad against the British.
Subsequently, the British termed Wahabis as
traitors and rebels and carried out extensive
military operations against the Wahabis. The
movement was fully suppressed after 1870. British
also introduced the term sedition in the Indian
Penal Code 1870 to outlaw speech that attempted to
excite disaffection towards the government
established by law in India. Sedition Law and

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Independence Movement British used the sedition

law to quell the Indian freedom struggle and retain
imperial power. The first known use of Sedition
law was against Jogendra Chandra Bose, editor of
Bangobasi,who was charged in 1891 for
his criticism of the Age of Consent Bill whereby
he said that the bill was disastrous to religion and
was being forcefully imposed on Indians. He later
apologized for what he had written. During
freedom struggle, targets of this law included
renowned nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant. Later Bal
Gangadhar Tilak was also was also tried under
sedition law, who criticised the killing by Chapekar
brothers but also blamed the British government for
bringing the situation in the country to a brink, thus
instigating the revolutionaries. Tilak was convicted
and sentenced to six years imprisonment to
Mandalay jail. Later Mahatma Gandhi was tried in
1922 for his articles published in the
magazine Youth India.
What is sedition?
Indian constitution's chapter VI deals with offences
against the state and sedition is charged under
Section 124A of the IPC. The punishment includes
imprisonment for life and added fines.
Imprisonment can be for life-time or for three years
based on the nature of seditious charges.
Simple Definition
The crime of saying, writing, or doing
something that encourages people to
disobey their government
Incitement of resistance to or
insurrection against lawful authority
124A. Sedition
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
1India, 1 shall be punished with 1imprisonment 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.

Page 30

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Explanation
1
the
expression
disaffection includes disloyalty and all
feelings of enmity.

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.

Explanation 3 Comments expressing

disapprobation of the administrative or
other action of the Government without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute
an offence under this section.

Classification
of
offence
Punishment
Imprisonment for life and fine, or imprisonment for
3 years and fine, or fineCognizableNonbailableTriable by Court of SessionNoncompoundable.
Comments The offence of sedition under section
124A is the doing of certain acts which would
bring the Government established by law in India
into hatred or contempt, or create disaffection
against it; Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1997)
Sedition is any form of speech, action,
writing that incites hatred against the established
order and harms the systematic peace of the
country. Seditious words written against the ruling
government and authority is called 'seditious libel'.
Any act within the meaning of section124A, which has the effect of subverting the
Government by bringing that Government into
contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against
it, would be within the penal statute because the
feeling of disloyalty to the Government established
by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency
to public disorder by the use of actual violence or
incitement to violence.
In other words, any written or spoken
words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of
subverting Government by violent means, which
are compendiously included in the term
revolution, have been made penal by the section
in question. But the section has taken care to
indicate clearly that strong words under lawful
means used to express disapprobation of the
measures of the Government with the view to their
improvement or alteration would not come within
the section. Similarly, comments, however,
strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

actions of the Government, without exciting those

feelings which generate the inclination to cause
public disorder by acts of violence, would not be
penal.
In other words, disloyalty to Government
established by law is not the same thing as
commenting in strong terms upon the measures or
acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to
ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure
the cancellation or alteration of the those acts or
measure by lawful means that is to say, without
exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty
which imply excitation to public disorder or the use
of violence.
This section requires two essentials:1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or
contempt or exciting or attempting to excite
disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done
(i) by words, either spoken or written, or
(ii) by signs,
(iii) by visible representation.
But, Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution says, all citizens have the right to
freedom of speech and expression. This right to
freedom of speech and expression incorporates
protection for austerely censuring existing
government structures, policies, and administrative
schemes, coupled with protection for suggesting
and recommending the development of other
system. Article 19 (2) of Indian Constitution says
that, every citizen of the country holds the right to
air his or her opinion through print or electronic
media with restrictions imposed.
In the case of Ram Nandan v. State of U.P.
The Honble High Court held that section 124-A
imposed restriction on the freedom of speech which
is not in the interest of the general public and hence
declared 124-A as ultra vires. But this decision of
the Honble High Court was overruled by the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath
Das v. State of Bihar, and held Section 124-A, intra
vires.
In Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, section 124-A, of
Indian Penal Code was struck down as
unconstitutional being contrary to freedom of
speech and Expression guaranteed under Art 19(1)
(a).
To avert the constitutional difficulty as a result of
the above referred case. The constitutional 1st
(Amendment) Act, 1951 added in Art 19 (2) two
words of widest import, wiz., in the interest of
public order.
Thereby
including
the
legislative
restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
The advocates of the other view held that section

Page 31

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
124-A, of I.P.C is constitutional and is not in
contravention of Art 19(1) (a) as it is saved by the
expression in the interest of public order in Art
19(2). It has been stated that the expression in the
interest of public order is of wider connotation, and
includes not only the Acts which are likely to
disturb public order but something more than that.
In accordance with this interpretation, section 124A, I.P.C. has been held intra vires of the
constitution. This view found blessings from the
Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath v. State of
Bihar wherein it was held that any law which is
enacted in the interest of public order may be saved
from the voice of constitutional invalidity.
The court had further observed in the said
case that the right guaranteed under Art 19(1) (a) is
subject to such reasonable restriction as would
come within the purview of clause (2), to Art 19
which comprises (a) security of the State, (b)
friendly relations with foreign states, (c) public
order, (d) decency or morality, etc. with reference
to the constitutionality of section 124-A, of the
I.P.C, as to how far they are consistent with the
requirements of clause (2) of Art 19 with particular
reference to security of state and public order, the
section, it must be noted penalizes any spoken or
written words or science or visible representations,
etc, which have the effect of bringing, or which
attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite
or attempt to excite disaffection towards the
government established by law has to be
distinguished from the persons for the time being
engaged in carrying on the administration.
Government established by law is the visible
symbol of the state would be in jeopardy, where the
government established by law is subverted.
A.E. Rama Kurup, Editor "Malayali" vs the
United State of Travancore, Cochin
In this case from 1949, after independence but prior
to the enactment of the Constitution, a Full Bench
of the Kerala High Court examined the matter of an
order of cancellation of license to publish a
newspaper owned by the Petitioner. The Court
found some of the published content seditious so.
Romesh Thappar vs The State of Madras
Within 4 months of the Constitution of
India coming into force, the newly established
Supreme Court of India ruled on the issue of
sedition in two cases decided on the same day. In
the matter of Romesh Thappar, a Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court held by a majority of 4:1
that Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of
Public Order Act, 1949 violated the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

The Apex Court also held in these cases

that the offence of 'sedition' is an offence against
public tranquillity and order also although Section
124A is to be found in the Chapter on Offences
against the State and sits in the category of other
offences such as 'treason' and 'waging war against
the State'. In response to these two judgements the
Central Government proceeded to amend Article
19(2) to insert "public order, decency and morality"
as grounds for restricting the exercise of free
speech and expression through the very first
amendment to the Constitution. The amendment
which contained several other grounds for
restricting free speech and expression was made
applicable retrospectively.
Kedar Nath Singh
The speech by Kedar Nath Singh was,
"Today 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".
After recording a substantial volume of
oral evidence, the learned Trial Magistrate
convicted the accused person both under S.124A
and 505-(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year.
The convicted persons preferred an appeal
to the High Court of Judicature at Patna, the Court
upheld the convictions and the sentence and
dismissed the appeal. Finally it was held that,
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which
makes sedition an offence is constitutionally valid.
Though the section imposes restrictions on
the fundamental freedom of speech and expression,
the restrictions are in the interest of public order
and are within the limit of permissible legislative
interference with the fundamental right.
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Territory
In this case a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court while denying bail to the accused
explained what may be construed as 'sedition' under
Section 124A, IPC.
Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India
In this case, the Apex Court held that the
freedom of speech and expression is not confined
to geographical limitations and it carries with it the
right of a citizen to gather information and to
exchange thought with others not only in India but
abroad too.
As per the judgement, criticising and
drawing general opinion against policies and
governmental decisions within a reasonable limit

Page 32

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
that does not incite people to rebel is consistent
with freedom of speech and expression.
Balwant Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab
The Appellants were government servants
who were convicted for the offence of 'sedition'
because they shouted slogans in front of a crowd at
a public ceinam hall on the day the Late Prime
Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated
Arun Jaitey vs State of U.P.
In this case, decided less than four months
ago, a single Judge Bench of the Allahabad High
Court threw out a charge of 'sedition' against the
Petitioner who is also the Finance Minister under
the Central Government. A Judicial Magistrate
took suo motu cognizance of an article written by
the Petitioner containing critical view of a
judgement of the Supreme Court of India issued in
the National Judicial Commission Act case
In 2009, V Gopalaswamy (Vaiko) was
slapped with sedition charges for his statements
against Indias sovereignty in speech on Sri
Lankas war with LTTE In 2007, Binayak sen was
arrested for sedition charges due to his help to carry
messages to Maoists in Chhattisgarh.
Arundhati Roy case
In 2010 Arundhati Roy and others were charged
under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting
enmity between classes), 153B (imputations,
assertions prejudicial to national integration), 504
(insult intended to provoke breach of peace) and
505 (false statement, rumour circulated with intent
to cause mutiny or offence against public peace
when she spoke at "Azadi-the Only Way"
?conference in Jammu and Kashmir.
The filing of the FIR came following a
directive from a local court on a petition filed by
Sushil Pandit who alleged that Geelani and Roy
made anti-India speeches at a conference on a
senior police official said. Roy and Geelani had
shared the dais with Maoist sympathiser Vara Vara
and others. Geelani was heckled by the audience.
Binayak Sen
In 2010 Binayak Sen was accused of sedition by
the Chhattisgarh government for allegedly
supporting the outlawed Naxals and thereby
violating the provisions of the Chhattisgarh special
public security act (CSPSA) and the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. He was later
acquitted due to lack of evidence.
In 2010, Noor Mohammad Bhat, a lecturer from
Gandhi Memorial College was arrested for setting
an anti-India question paper.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Aseem Trivedi
In 2011, a nationwide anti-corruption movement
India Against Corruption gathered pace in the
leadership of a veteran Gandhian Anna Hazare
demanding Jan Lokpal Bill. Aseem Trivedi joined
the crusade and started a cartoon based campaign,
Cartoons Against Corruption to support the
movement with his art. He launched a website
www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com consisting of
his sharp anti corruption cartoons targeting corrupt
system and the politicos. He displayed his cartoons
in the MMRDA ground, Mumbai during the hunger
strike of Anna Hazare.
But, his website was suspended by Crime Branch,
Mumbai on the first day of the protest, when he
received an email from BigRock, the domain name
registrar with which his website was registered,
saying, "We have received a complaint from Crime
Branch,
Mumbai
against
domain
name
'cartoonsagainstcorruption.com' for displaying
objectionable pictures and texts related to flag and
emblem of India. Hence we have suspended the
domain name and its associated services."
In 2014 kashmiri Students from swamivivekanad
subharti university in meerut who cheered for
Pakistan during the Asia Cup were charged under
sedition.
Hardik Patel
In 2015 The Gujarat government booked a Patel
leader under sedition for sending messages
containing offensive language against the Prime
Minister, the State Chief Minister and Amit Shah,
the President of BJP. These cases are indicative of
a high level of intolerance being displayed by
governments towards the basic freedom enjoyed by
citizens. Democracy has no meaning without these
freedoms and sedition as interpreted and applied by
the police is a negation of it.
Kanhaiya Kumar
In February 2016, JNU, Jawaharlal Nehru
university student union president Kanhaiya Kumar
was arrested on charges of sedition under section
124-A of Indian Penal Code. However this arrest
has raised a political turmoil in the country with
academicians and activists marching and protesting
against this move by the government. While those
associated with JNU, past and present feel that the
government is stifling and ruthlessly suppressing
dissent, there is another part of the population that
believes JNU for long has been supporting antiIndia activities and the students involved must be
punished for this act. Protests by both sides are
continuing. Kanhaiya Kumar is the president of
JNUSU. On 2 March 2016 the videos purporting to
show this activity were found to be fake and he was
released after three weeks in jail.

Page 33

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Vol-2, Issue-5, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
References
Conclusion
Yet, it is not the first time that the sedition law has
been used in independent India. And it will not be
the last time. It is neither rare nor frequent. But it
happens often enough when it serves a political
purpose. Governments invoke the law and the
opposition cries foul. The irony of double standards
is striking. The same political parties when in
government cite the national interest and when in
opposition wax eloquent about rights or freedom.
In the present mess, there are no winners. There are
only losers. The government runs the risk of losing
support of young people, who are an important
political constituency, and the wrath of students
might spill over on to the streets. Moreover, it
distracts the government from its priority tasks.
That can help in progress of society in India. past
judgments of the honorable courts have always
became the tale between section 124A and article
19(1). where one deals with freedom of speech and
one controls the autonomy. words against state is
not a matter of freedom. Anything in against of
national interest is subject to sedition. After all
autonomy is as autonomy does.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition
ibid
) 1. Subs. by Act 4 of 1898, s. 4, for the
original s. 124A which had been ins. by
Act 27 of 1870, s. 5. 2. The words Her
Majesty or omitted by the A.O. 1950.
The words or the Crown Representative
inserted after the word Majesty by the
A.O. 1937 were omitted by the A.O. 1948.
3. The words British India have
successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948,
the A.O.1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec.3 and
sch. to read as above. 4. The words or
British Burma ins. by the A.O.1937
omitted by the A.O.1948. 5. Subs. by Act
26 of 1955, sec.117 and sch., for
Transportation for life or any shorter
term (w.e.f.1-1-1956).
AIR 1959 Alld. 101
Ulta virus- beyond the legal power or
authority
AIR 1962 SC 955
AIR 1950 SC 124
Supra Note 1
AIR 1950 Ker 83
AIR 1950 SC 214
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
(1986) 90 (2) PLR 109
AIR 1995 SC 1785
2016 (92) AllCC 352

Page 34