Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar

Facts

Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party, delivered a speech at Barauni in Bihar on 26 May 1953 attacking the Congress government in inflammatory terms (referring to 'Congress goondas' and calling for a revolution to overthrow the existing order). He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 124A and 505(b) IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, which was affirmed on appeal. He appealed to the Supreme Court, and his appeal was heard with connected matters that directly challenged the constitutional validity of these provisions.

Issues

• Whether Section 124A IPC (sedition) is unconstitutional as violating the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• Whether Section 505 IPC is similarly unconstitutional.
• If valid, what is the true scope of these offences and the mental element/tendency they require.

Arguments

The appellant contended that Sections 124A and 505 IPC are overbroad and unconstitutional because they penalise even harmless criticism of government without distinguishing speech that endangers public order from speech that does not, and so fall outside the reasonable restrictions permitted by Article 19(2). The State contended that the sections are saved by Article 19(2) as restrictions in the interest of public order and the security of the State, relying on the narrower Federal Court view of sedition in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v King-Emperor.

Held

The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of both Sections 124A and 505 IPC, but only by reading them down. Resolving the conflict between the broad Privy Council construction (Tilak's case) and the narrower Federal Court construction (Niharendu Dutt Majumdar), the Court adopted the narrower view so as to keep the section within constitutional limits. It held that sedition is confined to acts involving an intention or a tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence; words penalising disaffection are constitutional only when they have this pernicious tendency. A citizen has the right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government by way of criticism, however strongly worded, so long as he does not incite people to violence or create public disorder. So construed, the restrictions are in the interest of public order and within the ambit of Article 19(2), and the convictions were remitted for reconsideration in light of this interpretation.

Ratio decidendi

Section 124A IPC penalises only speech that is intended to, or has a tendency to, incite violence or create public disorder; strong or even vitriolic criticism of the Government that lacks this tendency is not sedition. So limited, the provision is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public order under Article 19(2) and is constitutionally valid.

Significance

A leading authority on free speech and sedition: it saved Section 124A by reading in a requirement of incitement to violence or tendency to disturb public order, and remains the controlling test for sedition, reaffirmed in cases such as Balwant Singh v State of Punjab and invoked when the Supreme Court kept sedition prosecutions in abeyance in S.G. Vombatkere v Union of India (2022). Under the new code, sedition as a named offence is abolished: Section 124A is replaced by Section 152 BNS ('acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', covering excitement of secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities), and Section 505 IPC is recast as Section 353 BNS; the Kedar Nath requirement that penal speech offences be confined to incitement/disorder continues to inform their reading.

Related