Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar
Case: Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar
Supreme Court of India, 1962
Citation: AIR 1962 SC 955
Background / Facts:
Kedarnath Singh was charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with sedition. He had made certain speeches allegedly inciting disaffection against the Government of India.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether his speech constituted sedition under Section 124A IPC, which penalizes words or actions that bring or attempt to bring hatred or contempt or excite disaffection towards the government.
Legal Issues:
What constitutes sedition under Section 124A IPC?
Whether criticism of the government or advocacy of change by lawful means amounts to sedition?
The scope of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down important principles defining the scope of sedition:
Sedition is not mere criticism:
Mere criticism of the government or even the advocacy of change by lawful means does not amount to sedition.
Disaffection vs. Incitement to Violence:
Sedition involves intention or tendency to create public disorder, incite violence, or cause hatred or contempt against the government.
Test of Sedition:
The Court adopted the test of "tendency to create public disorder" or incitement to violence as the threshold for sedition.
Distinction from Freedom of Speech:
The right to criticize and express dissent is protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Words must have a direct tendency to incite violence or public disorder to be considered sedition.
Thus, the Court ruled that only speech that incites violence or public disorder can be punished as sedition, and mere disapproval or criticism of the government is constitutionally protected.
Important Legal Principles:
Section 124A IPC – Sedition:
Punishes any words or acts that bring or attempt to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government if they incite violence or public disorder.
Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a):
Protected subject to reasonable restrictions including public order.
Reasonable Restrictions – Article 19(2):
Speech that incites violence or threatens public order is not protected.
Distinction between Sedition and Legitimate Criticism:
Legitimate criticism or advocacy for reform by lawful means is not sedition.
Related Case Law:
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962):
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in this case clarified and restricted the scope of sedition.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 1 SCC 424:
Affirmed that sedition law cannot be used to suppress legitimate criticism or dissent.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1:
Further protected freedom of speech by striking down overbroad restrictions.
Summary:
Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar is a landmark case that carefully balanced the constitutional right to freedom of speech with the state's interest in maintaining public order. The Supreme Court:
Restricted the scope of sedition to acts that incite violence or public disorder.
Protected criticism and dissent as essential to democracy.
Emphasized that the law of sedition should not be misused to stifle legitimate free speech.
RELATED Blog
0 comments