Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or

otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to

excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, a shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanations
 The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
 Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section.
 Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Sedition is a consisting of acts done, words spoken and published or writings capable of
being a libel published, in each case with an intention.
1. To bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the Govt. and
Constitution or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice.
2. To excite the Queen’s subjects to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the
alteration of any matter in Church or state by law establish.
3. To raise discontent or disaffection amongst her Majesty’s subjects.
4. To promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes.
 Where a person defames he is punishable under Section 500 IPC.
 If it affects the entire class or community it is offence under Section 153A.
 If it is of the state it becomes sedition under Section 124A.
 In England it is called seditious libel.
 The offence will be constituted when there is a popular discontentment which leads
to the revolution.
 Which means indirectly that Government can put itself safely beyond criticism.
 A person may express an opinion hostile to government and it won’t be sedition but
if that affects the very existence of the Govt. it would become sedition.
 The constitutionality of the section was upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable
restriction in the interest of public order, after narrowly interpreting its text,
according to which it would be no offence merely to cause ill feeling or absence of
affection against the Government, it would be only if it is intended or has a tendency
to create public disorder or incites violence. ( Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR
1962 SC 955, the court interpreted the section in the light of decisions in R v.
Sullivan and R v. Aldred)
  Reg. v. Alexander Martin Sullivan [(1867-71) 11 Cox's Criminal Law Cases, 44

“Sedition is a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason and it frequently
precedes treason by a short interval. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it
embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to
disturb the tranquility of the State, and lead ignorant persons to Endeavour to subvert
the Government and the laws of the empire. The objects of sedition generally are to
induce discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring
the administration of justice into contempt; and the very tendency of sedition is to incite
the people to insurrection and rebellion. Sedition has been described as disloyalty in
action, and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to
excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war;
to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or
constitution of the realm, and generally all endeavors to promote public disorder.”
 Coleridge, J., in the course of his summing up to the Jury in the case
of Rex v. Aldred [(1911-13) 22 Cox's Criminal Law Cases, 1
 “Nothing is clearer than the law on this head — namely, that whoever by language,
either written or spoken, incites or encourages others to use physical force or
violence in some public matter connected with the State, is guilty of publishing a
seditious libel. The word ‘sedition’ in its ordinary natural signification denotes a
tumult, an insurrection, a popular commotion, or an uproar; it implies violence or
lawlessness in some form….”
 Now, the situation is that the section is to be interpreted in a such a narrow sense so
that it should not become unconstitutional.
 The words, deeds or writings which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the
state and lead people to endeavor to subvert the government and the laws of the
country.
 What do we know by this is that sedition does not necessarily involve any creation of
disorder.

 The Supreme Court observed in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC
124 the deletion of the word ‘Sedition’ from the draft Article 13(2) shows that
criticism of government exciting disaffection or bad feeling towards it is not to be
regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the
press, unless it is such as to undermine the security or tend to overthrow the state.
 A publication is punishable under this section only if it incites violence or creates
public disorder or is intended to create public disorder or has a tendency to do so
with a view to subverting the government established by law in India.

 As to whether the writing was intended to create disorder or has a tendency to do so,
the test is that of a reasonable men; means if reading the article as a whole the
reasonable and probable effect on the minds of readers is to incite violence then the
offence would be constituted. No need to show whether any overt act was done or
the attempt to do it succeeded. To determine intention or the tendency the
language of the offensive matter has to be considered along with the
circumstances in which it was made.
 ‘Government established by law’, does not indicate those persons who are for the
time being engaged in the administration, but the authority of the established
government, which needs to be subverted by violent means would be covered under
this section. (interpretation to be in the light of ‘Security of the State’ in art. 19(2)).
 A mere absence or negation of love or goodwill will not constitute offence under
this section but positive feeling of aversion which is similar to disloyalty.
 Where the words used could not possibly have such tendency to provoke violence
or create public disorder the intention would be immaterial.
 Where this pre requisite is satisfied then not only the author but editor, printer or
publisher will be held liable. The defense that the matter was put in paper in absence
or without authority is not going to work.
 If the nature and effect of a matter published in a news paper or book be seditious, it
is no defense under the section that the matter was re published from other
newspaper or that it was mere compilation from other sources.
 Any order for forfeiting seditious writing must operate throughout the country, for it
cannot be said that a writing is seditious in one part of the country and not in another.
Attempt
 Once the ingredients of section 124 A, as properly interpreted are satisfied, the
accused will be held liable if he does any overt act towards the commission of an
offence. For. E.g. A packet containing a manuscript having seditious publication sent
by post with a covering letter requesting the addressee to circulate, but the
consignment never reached the desired place. ‘Attempt’ committed.
 Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955)
 Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (AIR 1951 Punj. 27)
 Romesh Thapar case
 Brij Bhushan case
Government established by law is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of
the State will be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted.
Hence, the continued existence of the Government established by law is an essential
condition of the stability of the State. That is why 'sedition', as the offence in Section
124-A has been characterized, comes, under Chapter VI relating to offences against
the State. Hence any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect
of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred,
or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the
feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the
idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to
violence.
 In a landmark judgement in the Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case, five
judges of the Supreme Court upheld sedition as constitutional.
 Kedar Nath Singh had been brought to court for making a rather intemperate speech,
which he began by saying, “Today the dogs of the CID are loitering around Barauni.
Many official dogs are sitting even in this meeting. The people of India drove out the
Britishers from this country and elected these Congress goondas to the gaddi and
seated them on it. Today these Congress goondas are sitting on the gaddi due to
mistake of the people. When we drove out the Britishers, we shall strike and turn out
these Congress goondas as well...," continuing in this vein and calling for a general
revolution.
 He was charged with sedition, and ultimately his case went up to the Supreme Court,
where the constitutionality of the provision itself was challenged.
 The SC upheld the constitutionality of sedition in the light of ‘in the interest of
public order’, which SC considered is wide enough term to take into its realm.
 The case is actually the one in which three criminal appeals were joined together as
in all the appeals the commonality was the challenging of the constitutionality of the
Section 124 A of IPC.
 All were disposed off together by upholding the constitutionality of the Section 124
A. The court also detailed out the conditions which won’t attract the section.
 What is not sedition;
◦ Mere “strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of
Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means” is
not sedition.
◦ “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the
Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to
cause public disorder by acts of violence” is not sedition.
◦ “Commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its
agencies, so as to make the condition of the people better or to secure the
cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say,
without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to
public disorder or the use of violence” is not sedition.
 A “citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its
measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to
violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating
public disorder.”

 So to summarize, the Supreme Court has stated that Section 124A cannot be
interpreted literally
 The two essential ingredients required to establish the crime of sedition under
Section 124A are:
 The acts complained of must be intended to have the “effect of subverting
the Government” by violent means; and
 The acts complained of must be intended, or have a tendency, to create
disorder and order by resort to violence and must incite violence.
 Therefore, mere slogan shouting against the State or the Government
established by law which is not intended to have the “effect of subverting the
Government” by violent means; and which is not intended to, nor has the
tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace/ law and order by
resort to violence; and which does not incite violence will not amount to the
crime of sedition under section 124A.