Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar

Facts

Kedar Nath Singh was convicted of sedition under Section 124A IPC for a speech criticising the government. He challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench to resolve conflicting High Court views on the provision.

Issues

• Whether Section 124A IPC violated the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Whether the offence of sedition could be saved as a reasonable restriction 'in the interests of public order' under Article 19(2).

Arguments

The appellant argued that Section 124A penalised mere disaffection or bad feelings towards the government and thus exceeded Article 19(2), which did not list 'sedition'. The State argued that the provision protected the State against subversion and fell within public order and security of the State.

Held

The Court upheld Section 124A but read it down to save it. Distinguishing strong criticism of the government from speech tending to incite violence or public disorder, it held that disapprobation of government measures by lawful means, however strongly worded, is not seditious. Only words, written or spoken, which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order fall within the offence. So construed, the provision bore a reasonable relation to public order and survived Article 19(2). The Court also distinguished 'the Government established by law' from persons currently carrying on the administration.

Ratio decidendi

Section 124A is constitutional only when confined to speech that incites violence or has a pernicious tendency to create public disorder; mere criticism of the government, however vehement, is protected by Article 19(1)(a).

Significance

The defining authority on sedition and the boundary between protected dissent and punishable subversive speech. It supplies the 'pernicious tendency' standard, has governed all subsequent sedition jurisprudence, and remains the touchstone in continuing debates over the misuse of Section 124A.

Related