CASE ANALYSIS ON

KEDARNATH VS STATE OF BIHAR

SUBMITTED BY

PRATIK BASISTHA

Batch 2020-25, DIVISION – D , BA.LLB

PNR: 20010223046

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

March, 2022
INTRODUCTION

The law relating to sedition has been under the light of recent debates and discussion over the
recent era. Some regards it as an obsolete law imposed at the time of imperial rule while some
regards it as a means to retain harmony between the state and the citizens. So understanding this
statute as a legal aspirant helps to highlights its flaws and render to the needs of the people. So
this research imitative aims to do the same by analyzing a renowned case law of the same statute
with IRAC methodology. This is carried forward by analyzing judgment, statute and
commentaries and summarizing everything in a serial manner

IRAC ANALYSIS OF CASE KEDARNATH VS STATE OF BIHAR1

Issue: -

This case revolves around the facts of a person named Kedarnath and his attempt to use abusive
words against a political party. He personally was a member of a political party. Precisely he
verbally abused the CID officials with the word “dog” and political party Indian National
Congress as “goondas”. He even stressed on his ideology of socialism and opined that eventually
a revolution will come which will ultimately kill all the zamindar and capitalist. He accused the
Congress Leaders as thugs who have made looting the Indian wealth as their professional
conduct. He claimed that the prevailing leaders of the Indian National Congress should be burnt
alive and a new well defined government working towards the need of he society should be built
with their ashes. He went on the extent of criticizing the attempt of Vinobha Bhave to
redistribute the land. So on the basis of his attempt to outrage public outcry and the modesty of
the political leaders, a case was placed under the Sections of 124A and section 505 and he was
served a rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The accused then appealed before Patna High Court but it refused to hear totally on the following
grounds:-

The main subject matter of this case was nothing but disparaging the government and that the
speech was totally in the capacity of being seditious. It was noted that the speech did not
criticized any particular government matter or policy.

1
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
The accused further decided to appeal before the apex court that is the Supreme Court of India.
Here the judges referred to two conflicting cases i.e. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs The King 2 and
King Emperor vs Sadasiv Narayan Bhalerao3. The former was a Federal Court judgment whereas
the later was that of a Privy Council.

The Supreme Court observed that while the Federal Court’s judgment states that legislature can
put reasonable restrictions, the Privy council’s judgment viewed Section 124A is violation on
constitutional grounds on the basis of clause 1(a) of article 19 read with clause (2) of the same
article of the Indian constitution. So the appeal was refused to be entertained but the appeal of
the other issue was reverted back to the Patna HC.

The main issues of this renowned case law can be summaries as:-

1. If Section 124A and 505 of Indian Penal Code has constitutional validity when viewed with
Article 19(1) (a) and Article (19) (2)?

2. Whether malicious intention of outraging public tranquility and inciting disobedience or

disturbance of orderly state is an offence of Sedition?

Rule:-

Statutes Referred

1. Section 124A of IPC:- This section deals with the seditious act making it a punishable offence.
It describes that any act of bringing hatred to the established government by way of word, signs
and representation will be liable for imprisonment as a punishment

2. Section 505 of IPC:-This section pertains to punishment of imprisonment for three years for
any person who publishes and circulates any news or rumor with the malicious intention of
outraging hatred between different communities specially religious groups.

3. Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution:- This is one of the fundamental right which gives the
right to the citizens of freedom of speech and expression.

2
AIR 1939 Cal 703
3
[1942] F.C.R. 38
4. Article (19)(2) of Indian Constitution:- This gives a state to impose reasonable restriction
against the freedom of speech and expression for maintaining public order.

Application

In regards to the first issue the Supreme Court observed that maintaining law, security and order
by the government is a basic duty towards the wellbeing of the citizens. So this may even result
into punishing some offenders who may outrage the same. In the country like India where the
rights of democracy is fully observed and exercised, the right of freedom of speech and
expression must be upheld at any cost. But the same must be put forward by some restrictions so
as to upkeep the security of the state. So it was held that both the Section of IPC i.e. 124A and
505 are within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)

With regards to the second issue relying on the case law of Federal and Privy Council, the apex
court held that the decision of both the court was a conflicting one. In the decision of King
Emperor vs Sadasiv Narayan Bhalerao held that the tendency to incite disturbance of law and
order is not necessary. Seditious act is actually complete whenever any outraging comment is
made against the government then that person is said to be committing sedititon. So if the section
is interpreted in such a manner then the same section is ultra vires of Article 19(1) when read
with clause (2) of the same article.

But as per the decision of Federal Court, it was interpreted that the very offence of sedition is
nothing but inciting clear cut violence or malice intention of disparaging the established
government in such a way that people have a contemptuous feeling against the state. This shows
that Section 124A was given a very limited or so called restrictive interpretation.

So the apex court of India concluded that 124A pertaining to seditious act can never be literally
interpreted and thus formed two essential conditions or elements:-

1. The act has to be a clear intention of overthrowing the government by violent means.

2. The act has a tendency to out throw the public tranquility and incite violence.
Conclusion-

So the final outcome of the case can be summarized as:-

1. Section 124A lays in the intra vires of Indian constitution

It is necessary required to retain the harmony between the states with the citizen. So it is
necessary to punish anyone who tries to disrupt this harmony and resort to violence.

2. Reasonable Restrictions

Since the court is established as a necessary guarantor for upholding the fundamental rights
therefore a responsibility lies to kill any law that aborts fundamental rights of the citizens But at
the same time the legislatures has a duty to impose reasonable restrictions. Therefore a clear
balance needs to be maintained between the both.

This judgment was appreciated by a lot of critics as it maintained the rights of citizens with the
very duty of the state to put restrictions of reasonable manner. The same judgment is taken as a
guiding light in numerous other cases pertaining to violation of seditious act. So this judgment
worked as a stepping stone of democratic principles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED

Gaur K.D, (2018), Textbook on Indian Penal Code. Lexis Nexis

Mishra S.N (2019), Hindu Law .Central Law Agency

Pillai PSA (2020), Law of Crimes, Lexis Nexis

WEBSITES REFERRED

Kumar Chandan, (28 February 2022). Analysis of Sedition legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-

5493-analysis-of-sedition.html

Singh Ramender. (7 March 2022). Kedarnath vs State of Bihar .

www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2915-kedarnath-vs-state-of-bihar html