Balwant Singh v State of Punjab

Facts

On 31 October 1984, hours after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, two government employees, Balwant Singh and Bhupinder Singh, were arrested near Neelam Cinema, Chandigarh. They allegedly raised the slogans 'Khalistan Zindabad', 'Raj Karega Khalsa' and 'Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Karan Da'. They were convicted by the trial court under Sections 124A and 153A IPC, which was upheld in appeal and revision.

Issues

• Whether the casual raising of such slogans a couple of times constitutes sedition under Section 124A IPC
• Whether the conduct amounts to promoting enmity between groups under Section 153A IPC, given the requirement of mens rea
• Whether the prosecution evidence was credible to sustain the conviction

Arguments

The defence (Sr. Adv. V.M. Tarkunde) argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relied only on police witnesses with no independent witnesses, and that even if the slogans were raised, no offence under Section 124A or 153A was made out. The State contended that, given the tension following the assassination, the slogans attracted these provisions, that independent witnesses could not be associated due to public reluctance, and that the police witnesses were credible.

Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both appellants. It held that Section 124A requires an intention to incite hatred or excite disaffection towards the Government established by law, and that the casual raising of slogans once or twice by two individuals, without creating any disturbance or evoking any response from the public, could not be said to be aimed at exciting hatred or disaffection. On Section 153A, the Court held that promoting enmity requires mens rea and a tendency to cause public disorder, neither of which was established as there was no evidence of any actual disturbance or communal reaction. The Court also criticised the trial court for relying on imagination rather than the record, including convicting on a slogan ('Hindustan Murdabad') that was never even alleged.

Ratio decidendi

A few casual slogans raised once or twice by individuals, which do not incite or evoke any response from the public and cause no disturbance, do not constitute sedition under Section 124A IPC or promoting enmity under Section 153A IPC; both require the requisite intent (mens rea) and a real tendency to disturb public order.

Significance

A landmark on the narrow, speech-protective construction of sedition, repeatedly followed for the proposition that mere sloganeering without incitement or public disorder is not seditious. Under the new code, sedition is replaced by Section 152 BNS (acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) and Section 153A IPC is re-enacted as Section 196 BNS; the mens-rea and incitement-to-disorder reasoning of this case remains persuasive in interpreting those provisions.

Related