Sedition
Sedition
1
,z,-~ vistence of a design to wage war against the Government
s (1) 'fhe e,..,
of 111dia; such a design must be within the knowledge of the accused;
(2) 'fhe accused must have concealed that design; and
(3) Th concealment must have been intended to facilitate the
e
(4) wage war.
deSigrt t~ makes the concealment of design to wage war against the
. sect:Ion ct . .
fh! 5 of 1ndia by any a or omissmn, so that, such concealment may
eJ1lll'ent ging of such war, an offence.
G~.\tate the hwald in State (N.C. T. Delhi) v. Novjot Sandhu 1 that the accused
•
e of co~sprracy d 1 f '
faCJJ
Jt wasledge an .P ans _o terrorists to attack Parliament
to~·
ad kJ1°~ illegal om1ss10n to app_nse police or Magistrate of the design of
J-lis which is an act of waging war would make him liable for offence
oJlSPirato~ n 123 I.P.C. The fact that no charge was framed against him
~der Se!~n 123 would not pr~judice him because charge of waging war
t111der Se allied offences are sub1ect matter of charges.
and 0th:r offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable and
Th oundable and triable by Court of Session.
on-cornP .
Jl Assaulting President, Governor, etc: with intent to compel or restrain
~24,of any lawful power.-~oever, with the intention of inducing or
e,ercpeisJllng the Presid~~t o~ India, or the Governfor of any State, to exercise
coJJl • froDl exerc1smg m any manner any o the lawful powers of such
refralll
or 'dent or Governor, .
rrest ults or wrongfully restrams, or attempts wrongfully to restrain, or
assa by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or
over;t:'80 to ov~rawe, ~ch ~s!dent or Gove1:11or, '
atte 8phall be pumshed With unpnsonment of either description for a term
. ay extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
"'bich JD COMMENT
Ingredients. - The following ar~ the ing_redients of this section :-
(1) It is an offence committed agamst the President of India or the
Governor of a State.
(2) The accused must commit one of the following acts;
(i) Assault or attempt to commit assault; or
(ii) Wrongful restraint or attempt to restrain; or
(iii) Use of criminal force or show of criminal force by the
accused.
(3) Doing one of the above acts with the intention of inducing or
compelling such person to exercise or refrain from exercising any of his
lawful powers.
124-A 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
.A I
12 4 . th have this intention or this tendency. Publ
s ic disorder
sedition if . ~yation or likelihood of public disorder is
thus the gist
f' 5tittlte sanable an:P or words complaine
d of must either incite to disorder
cO the reffa nee• 'fhe a t satisfy reasonable men
or oe that that is their intention or
f t}le t,e such as o
o tlst
or ff' c/ ment of law was not approved by their Lordships of
tef'd~e .ab~"~ s:: case of Emperor v. Sada Shiv Narayan,1 the
and they held that
council U'\ ction 124-A or of the rules under which the
case was tried
rri1anguage of ~tement of law as made by the C.J.
The expression "excite
t}le ·llstify ~e :, adid not include "excite
flot l . ff ction disorder". The dicta in Tilak and
.1d d1sa e was approved.
d t'5 case
se11satt coming into force Of the Co~sti'tution the validity
Afte! d by the Supreme Court m Ramesh Thapar's2 of this section
as considered o·sions Constitution First Amendment Act case. As a result
w was passed in 1951.
of these twoin eKedar Nath Smg • h's,3
case_ th . e valid'ity of this section was again
'f}lereafter, the ground of the prov1s1ons of this section being in
0
qllestioned ~ speech and expression. The plea was nega violation
tived by the court
of freedotnctt?on was held to be constitutional. The expla
d the nation to the section
alla1<es itseclear that cntio •• •
sm odf dpubli'thine.
measures or c_o~ent on Government
tl1. n however strongly wor e , W1
the r
is o .Y dw1·sorder or disturbance of law and order that
ubhc
reasonable limits and
actiO ' damental right of freedom of s~~ech and expression consistent with
is not
hen the words have the perruoous tendency or intention affected. It
of creating
the provisions of the
~ction are attra~e~. th .
Any act with in e mearung. 0 f . section 124-A whic
h has the effect of
b rting the government by bringing that gove
rnme nt
su ved or creating disaffection against it would be withi into contempt or
hatre • g Of disl l n the penal statute
b use the feelin oya ty to the government established by law or
eca_ty to it imports the idea of tendency to public disor
enllllctual violence or incitement to offence.
der by the use of
a •
.
In other words, any wn~ en or spoken words, etc. which have implicit
in them the idea of subverting government by
violent means which are
compendiously included within the term 'revolution'
have been made penal
by the section in question.
Exciting disaffection.-To constitute an offence under this
necessary that one should excite or attempt to excite mutin section it is not
y or rebellion or any
kind of actual disturbance, it would be sufficient that one
tries to excite feeling
of hatred or contempt towards the government.4 In a case
the Federal Court has
opined that the essence of the offence of sedition is incite
ment to violence; mere
abusive words are not enough and that "public disor
der or the reasonable
anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the gist
of the offence". The acts
or words complained of must either incite to disorder
or must be such as to
satisfy reasonable men that it is their intention or tende 5
ncy. But in a later case
this view was overruled by the Privy Council.6
1. AIR 1943 PC 82.
2. AIR 1950 SC 124.
3. AIR 1962 SC 955.
4. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1867) 22 Born. 112.
5. Niharendra Dutta Majumdar, (1942) F.C.R. 38.
6. Sadashiv Narayan, (1947) 49 Born. LR 526.
318 INDIAN PENAL CODE
. ction do l S. 1i4.f\
The offence unde
r this1 sThe esse es not require an intention to
nce of the offe
violence, of pu_bl • d' sorder
ic _1 with whie nce under this .
consists in the m ch the language • ll\cite
tentio~ is use d: The inte secti
speaker, writer or
p~blis~er :~ re d
be in ferred from the part ntio n o~I\
or letter. The in fr icular speech .
om th e articles. The requ a
cannot be attribut tention is g
ed to a person if he w as no t aware of th is ite ~t :~ ~~ e
seditious publicat e contents of tht\
ion.2 e
In B.G. !ilak's ca 3
. pointed ou t that
se, b~! w::tural if, on reading the
or speeches, the and probable ef artt
re?so:a of 'those fect of the artic 1
speeches on the d w ho read them lesc:
addressed appear
m m b th t fe el ings of hatred,
or to whom ~
ey
s to ~ ; ovemment, the contempt or disa Were
w o ~ d b_e exate~ offence is comm ffection
to
cons1denng ~e. m ~ar ~f ;egaccused, an d the ef itted. But ~
tention to take fect his writings
to produce, it I~ into consideratio are likely
nec:s~a1 th da n the state of th
and of the public te of publication.4 e co
mm aand ethe occa N ot only the tim untry
place, the ~ r~ ;t sion of publicat e but the
~ c :e character ion are material.
mhust also e eta and description Regard
w o are expe e d ~ read the words.s To of that pa rt of
th e public
. stances and the su m up, the tim
oc casi on • • al l e, the place, the
e r r ~ Naurang of pu e
Singh v. State of blication, ar important•
Gurudwara in co Punjab,6 the ProR
urse of his spee agan~a Secretar
following Army y of the
action in Punjab. ch gave very ~ g h fi ~ e s of
H e ~ as charged w ca
124-A of IPC. T
he High Court of it h sedition un de sual~es
had not directed Pun1ab he l? ~ a r Section
or incited anyone t even th ou gh
his eech was to commit v10lence th e accused
to bring the Gov , b u t the tenden
li ke ~ oo d of viol er nm ent into contem
ence and public pt an d there w cy of
Attempt.-A pers di so rd er er rupting as a resu as every
attempting to ex on m ay be charged no lt of the speech.
cite and both su t only w it h exci
disaffection were cc essful ~ d unsucc ti ng b u t also w i~
placed on the sa essf_ul attempts
tried to excite me footing. So to exate
the feeling he even if a pe rs on
Adicharya,8 it was could be convic ha d only
held that sendin ted.7 in Surend
a copy of a m g through the po ra Narayan
anuscript of a st of a packet
requesting the seditious public containing
addressee to ci ation w it h a co
intercepted by an rculate it to ot vering letter
other person an hers; w he n th
an attempt to co d never reached e same was
mmit an offence the addressee,
Government esta under this sectio constitutes
bl is n.
established by la he d b y law in In d ia .- T
w in India" incl h e expression "G
not mean mer udes the execut overnment
ely the constit iv e po w er in action
Government as ut io na l framework. an d does
well as the Cen It in cl ud es
the p~rson ~r pe tr al Govemment. 9 the State
rs Government do
collectively, m su on~ for the time bein~. It mea es no t mean
ccession, who ar ns the pe rs on
e authorised to o r persons
1. Ram Nandan v. ad minister G ov er
St nm en t for
2. Chunnilal, (193 ate, AIR 1959 All. 101.
1) 12 Lah. 48 3.
3. ILR 22 Born. 112.
4. Per Lord Fitzgera
ld
5. Satyendra Nath Maz in Sullivan, 11 Cox. 50 at p. 59.
um
6. 1986 Cr LJ 846 (P dar v. Emp., AIR 1931 Cal. 337.
7. Queen Empress . & H.).
v. Bal Gaangadhar
8. (1911) 39 Ca
l. 522.
Tilak, (1867) ILR 22
r
9. Kshiteesh Chan
dra Roy v. Emp.,
AIR 1932 Cal. 54
7.
Of OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE 319
124-A I .
s. . . One particular set of persons .may be open to objection, and
~f1'1e beUlg nd to attack them and excite hatred against them is not
u,e uw t},elll a • th
"' 5sail ·tt·ng hatred against e government because they are only
to essa
" rilY exctd are not representatives Of that
C abstract conception which is
ne ·d als an ch • th f
iJldivt u t 1 To suggest a ange in e orm of Government cannot be said
Goveflllll~ ·g disaffection towards the Government established by law or to
to be causm t Government into hatred or contempt.2 A general criticism of
1,rifl~ prt:ers cannot be deemed to be a criticism of Government established
certaJ.ll ~ India. Similarly an ~tte~pt to remove from power the ministers in
by_ laWin any State or anr a~tation for the repeal of an Act of Parliament
0ffice f ll under the section 1f no unlawful means are em 1 d 3
ot a . o· .
caJ1ll . us ForlllS of Excitement.- 1saffection may be exci·t d •
p oye •
vano kind d umber
e in a n
a s. Writing of any '. poem,_ rama, story, novel or essays may be
of ; Ior the purpose of exciting disaffection. But seditious writing, if it
use ainS 1l1 . the hands. of. the author or. unpublished does not consti·tute thi
s
re:nce because publication of some kind is necessary. Sending of seditious
offatter by post addressed to someone not by name but by d • ti.
es1gna on as• the
Ill esentative of a large body (such as of students or teachers) amounts to
reprli tion if it is opened by anybody.4
Pub ca th f d••
Not 0 ~y the au or o se 1tious matter b~t. whosoever uses in any way
wor ds or pnnted •matter li bl
for the purpose of exciting feelings of disaffection to
the Government is . a . e under thi_s secti.on.5 The gravamen of the offence •
·sts in the publication and not in the authorship of the seditious matter.
const The printer, the pu?lis~er, .the edi~or or the owner or proprietor of the
press of a seditious publication 1s also hable like the author unless he proves
th t he was absent and was not aware of the contents of the paper beyond
th: fact that he was the d_eclared prop?etor and keeper of the press.6 In order
to escape liability. such printer or pubh~her etc.. must prove lack of knowledge
on his part. Sedition does not nece~sanly consist_ of written matter; it may be
evidenced by a woodcut or engraving of any kind or by exhibition of flags.
Explanation 1.-Explanation 1 makes it clear that the word "disaffection"
includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Disaffection means anything
which is 'contrary to affection'. It is very much nearer to 'hatred or dislike'.
To urge people to rise against the Government is tantamount to trying to
excite feelings of disloyalty in their minds.7 'Feelings of enmity' includes
ill-will, hostility, feelings of dislike amounting to enmity, and anything of a
similar class or character which can be summarised under the expression
'disloyalty and 'feelings of enmity'.8 . .
Explanations 2 and 3. - This section has taken care to indicate clearly
that strong words used to express disapprobation of . the measures of
government with a view to their improvements or alternatively lawful means
would not come within the section. Similarly, comments however strongly
1. Bhaskar, (1906) 8 Born. LR 421.
2. Arjun Arora v. Emp., AIR 1937 All. 295.
3. Dhirendra Nath Sen, (1938) 2 Cal. 672.
4. Suresh Chandra Sanyal, (1912) 39 Cal. 606.
5. B.G. Tilak, (1867) ILR 22 Bom. 112.
6. Chunni Lill, (1931) 12 Lah. 483. Bom)
7. Per Fawcett, J. in Phillip S. Pratt, ~927 (Unrep. nre •Bom).
8. Per Blackwell, J. in Krishnaji Khadtlkar, 1929 (U P·
320 INDIAN PENAL CODE
IS. 125
worded expressing disapprobation of actions of government witho .
those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disordut ~citing
of violence would not be penal. er Yacts
In other words, disloyalty to government established by law is not th
same thing as commenting . . strong terms upon measures or
m e
t th d • • acts f
government or its agencies so as to ame iora e e con itions of the 0
• 1• 0
In State of Bihar v. Shailbala Devi, the respondent was the chief of 'Pres.5
4
But the Supreme Court rejected the respondent's plea and held that Section
4 of the Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931 was constitutional.
Dramatic Performance. -Any dramatic performance likely to excite
feelings of disaffection to the Government may be prohibited by the
Government and persons taking part in any such performance may be
punished.
125. Waging war against any Asiatic power in alliance with the
Government of lndia.-Whoe ver wages war against the Government of any
Asiatic power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or
attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with
imprisonmen t of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
COMMENT
This section aims at protecting friendly Asiatic Powers from the ravages
of Indian citizens who may make excursions into their to-~ry, and then run
back to the comparative security of their own home/ lfilm of the
obligations of the State to allies and friendly powers t th
of such schemes by its subjects whether by fur