ISBN! PENAL CODE WITH THE CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 CENTRAL Law PUBLICATIONS— ‘A. Sedition.—Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by gens, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring 9 hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards “government established by law in India, shall be punished with P nt for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment nich may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1.—The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all of enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of ament with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do 5 Cri, LJ. 3950 (S.C.).INDIAN PENAL CODE 328 ¢ this sectior ence under thi Sritohatie not constitute an otte Pea ie Geneeinidy eeBleapprobation, Explanation — 3.— of i e Government without o,.% : » other action of the Governn iting Stalklewretive Of, Otte eee oitempt or disaffection, do not consti’ attempting to Bs offence under this section. Pe ae Ingredients.—The following are the two essentials of sedition (1) Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or ¢, Mtemp, exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the ( 20Vernmens India. (2) Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, eit or written, or (ii) signs, or (iii) by visible representation History.—Section 124-A was added to the Code in 1870 it was not in the present form. This section was explanations were added to it. During 1870 to 1898 the Meaning of th ‘disaffection’ was discussed in a number of cases. In Queen v. J aC Bose,’ CJ. Petheram explained ‘disaffection’ to Mean as a feeling contrary’ affection; in other ae dislike or hatred. Disapprobation means disapproval. If a person uses either spoken or written words sate in the minds of the person to whom they are addressed t to obey the lawful authority of the government, or to subvert o; resist if and when the oc casion should arise and if he does so w of creating such disposition, among his heare: the section. In Queen v. Balgangadhar Tilak? Strache e ruling, holding that a Man must not make or try enmity of any kind towards the Government. Amount andj disaffection is absolutely immaterial except perhaps in deali uestion of punishment, Were quoted with approval by Allahabad High Court in 5 of sedition has been known in England] its form of government, has to be armed! Conduct jeopardise the safety aS have the tendency to lead the and at that 4, amended jin 189] ir a disposition TS Or readers,OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE stare se such as to satisfy be to satisfy Teasonable men that that is their intention or above statement of |, mncil in the case of F of section 124-4 the statement of |, law was not ap imperor v. Sadi Or of the rul law as Sage 4 " di ‘ he expression "excite Beet incnde “excite disor ter The dicta in Tilak and was: approved. coming into force of the Constitution the validity of this section by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Thapart? and Brij Bhusan of these decisions Constitution First Amendment Act 1951. Thereafter, in Kedar Nath Singh’s,' case the validity of this Busshoned on the ground of the provisions of this section hon of freedom of peech and expression. The plea was E court and the section was held to be constitutional. The Section makes it clear that c: m of public measures or Proved by their Lordships of the Shiv Narayan, and they held that es under which the case was tried Made by the CJ ment action, however strongly worded, within reasonable with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and | It is only when the words have the pernicious of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and of the section are attracted meaning of section 124-A which has the effect of by bringing that government into contempt or N against it would be within the penal statute to the government established by law or of tendency to public disorder by the use of o offence. words, etc. which have implicit Violent means which areINDIAN PENAL CODE Of public disorder.’ The ran fn ak, 1 the intention with which Ki a om the particu” t, writer or publisher may be inferrec The e articles. The Pec Peiletten: The intention is gathered from eeatte = a Tequisiy, fannot be attributed to a person if he we ei the :¢ Seditious publication.’ t that if es Gs Tok’, ” it was pointed oul : t if, ia Teading LO) ‘s 1 probable effect of 41" or able, natural anc MH the arnt Speeches, i peerocal a ‘ ther Or to whom itt plings of hatred, contempt that feelings o' Pt or g ‘ ears the government, the offence is Commie intention of the accused, and the effect his wriynl" hy to take into consideration the state 1" i ind at the date of publication.’ Not only th bin Oly. . time 5 ty es and the occasion of publication * bi are materia, te ‘the character and description of that Part of ,, Bad pes the words.’ To sum up, the time, the o Pubjy c of publication, all are important," ty * Punjab’ the Propaganda Secret a gave very high figures of 0, % was charged with sedition undo «i > held that even though the lit violence, but the ieBe es | OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE state to assail them and to attack them and excite necessarily exciting hatred against the government 1, | individuals and are not repr sf bet Govemment.' To suggest a change in the form of Gover to be causing disaffection towards the Government « tablish fring present Government into hatred or contempt ertain officers cannot be deemed to be a criticism of ¢ Jaw in India. Similarly an attempt to remove from in any State or any agitation for the repeal eannot fall under the section if no unlawful mean: Various Forms of Excitement.—Disaffection may be « ways. Writing of any kind, poem, drama, story, novel or « for the purpose of exciting disaffection. But seditiou rit in the hands of the author or unpublished does not const . because publication of some kind is necessary.’ S« y post addressed to someone not by name but by de of a large body (such as of students or teacher nif it is opened by anybody.” ily the author of seditious matter but whosoever uses in ar ed matter for the purpose of exciting feelings of disaffectio 6 liable under this section.’ The gravamen of the offence lication and not in the authorship of the seditious matter ‘the publisher, the editor or the owner or proprietor of t plication is also liable like the author unless he prove ‘was not aware of the contents of the paper beyond declared proprietor and keeper of the press.” In order nter or publisher etc. must prove lack of know! ily consist of written matter; it may be if any kind* or by exhibition of flags | it clear that the word “disaffection ty. Disaffection means anything entatives of that ab: is tantamount to trying to ings of enmity’ includes e to indicate clearly the measures of y lawful meansee INDIAN PENAL CODE {§ 05 ed -omments howeve; © withi » secti similarly, co T ‘Sten. ene ee oadiin =the eer actions of government without ing BY aoe _expressi i ation of @ c é i ‘tin, ee erpe™ inclination to cause public disordey by we ings which generate the acts would not be penal. : sstablished by law words, disloyalty to government esti W 1S not the ; upon measures ¢ ong terms P sh aie or a eliorate the conditions of the p f those acts Or measures by | as commenting in str 8g or its agencies so as to am ation 0 he ‘ ayy, without: wating those feelings of enmity and , excitement to public disorder or use — re robation.—Disapprobation means disapproval : One yf fq sentiments or actions and yet he may like him at etiior’s etc—The editor of of Fee “ey be liable f, itious letters appearing in the ee sei extracts. of pers are published as a news item, it may attract the provision, Seieteuch writings are seditious libels. Republication Of seditious nother newspaper, one of which only was filed as an exhipj and used in the case against the editor of that paper on not a report of the Court of Justice, and is, therefore COple aW fy} disloyal, May gilbala Devi, the respondent was the chief of ‘Press of publishing and circulating pamphlets containing was violative of Section 4 of the Press Emergency 5 directed to deposit a security of Rs. 2,000/- under respondent contended that Section 3(3) of the said d void in view of the provisions contained in Art ution and the decision in Romesh Thappar’s cas e respondent's plea and held that Section 1931 was constitutional. atic performance likely to excite ent may be prohibited by te in any such performance may ™