Introduction

• In this case, the constitutional validity of the act of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) was challenged by the petitioner.
• The act was contended to restrict the freedom of speech which is not in the interest of the public having contrary opinions with government.

Facts

• Kedarnath a revolutionary leader, criticized the Congress Government which was the then ruling party.
• On the basis of the words used and statement made, a case was filed against him on the grounds of Section 124A, Sedition and Section 505, Public Mischief, and on this basis, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
• The High Court of Patna heard his matter, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
• As a result, to which he appealed before the Supreme Court where he challenged that his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was infringed.
• And, further contended that the provision for Sedition in IPC is ultra-vires of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Issues Involved

• Whether Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are ultra vires in view of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution?

Observation

• The Court observed that the provision of sedition clearly restricts freedom of speech under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The Court further observed that punishment for the act of sedition is covered under reasonable restrictions enshrined in the Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The Court further said that the criticism of the Government established by law must be considered different from criticism of a specific party.
• The Court further said the statements mentioned under Section 124A would disturb the peace and public order.
• The Court concluded that Section 124A must be construed to only penalize statements that incite public disorder.
• The Court also added that the protection of freedom of speech should be safeguarded to its full extent, but reasonable restrictions are necessary for the safety and integrity of the State.

Conclusion

The Court finally held that the restriction under Section 124A is constitutionally valid and necessary and upheld the provision for offence of Sedition in IPC.

Note

Section 124A of IPC: 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 [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.
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.

In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court of India had stayed the operation of the Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

However, 22nd Law Commission recommended retaining the provision with certain amendments.

The Commission recommended adding a procedural safeguard to Section 124A, requiring a preliminary inquiry by a police officer of Inspector rank before registering an FIR for sedition.