Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/01/1962

BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), DAS, S.K. , SARKAR, A.K., AYYANGAR,  N. RAJAGOPALA, MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

CITATION:  1962 AIR  955

Facts

The case of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar interpreted the Section 124A^[1] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which criminalizes sedition. Kedar Nath Singh who was a member of the Forward Communist Party in Bihar, delivered a speech criticizing the ruling Congress government, referring them as “goondas” which means hired criminals and gangsters in English. He also expressed his ideas of overthrowing the capitalist and zamindari systems.

The speech of the said kedar Nath Singh led to his prosecution under section 124A and section 505^[2](public mischief) of the IPC.

The trial court convicted him and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for one year, which was upheld by the Patna High Court. Kedar Nath Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A on the grounds that it violated his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)^[3] of the Constitution of India.

Legal Issues

The case raised several issues before the Court , these are :-

• Whether Section 124A which criminalizes sedition is constitutional i.e., fall consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
• Whether the restrictions imposed by Section 124A were “reasonable” and fall within the scope of Article 19(2)^[4] of the Constitution which provides reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order, security and sovereignty.
• The case needed the Court to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the government and acts that incite violence or disrupt public order.
• The Court also needed to examine whether the intention and effect of the Kedar Nath Singh’s speech were sufficient to constitute sedition.

Judgment

The Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but  also narrowed it’s scope so that it don’t violates freedom of free speech.

The key pointers are :

• The Court provided with a new interpretation of sedition. It said that only those acts which have the tendency to incite violence or create public disorder would fall under the scope of sedition. Mere criticism of the government would not amount to sedition unless and until it has incited any violence or disrupted public order.
• The Court held that Section 124A is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) . However, it also emplasized that sec 124 should not be misused against legitimate dissent.
• The Court highlighted the need to consider the intention and effect in determining sedition. It stated that the speech of Kedar Nath Singh didn’t incite violence or threatened public order , hence not a seditious speech.
• The Court balanced between the right to free speech and the need to maintain public order so that the provision of sedition is not misused to suppress dissent.

Impact of the Case

This landmark case had a far reaching impact on criminal law and democracy of India. This case became an important precedent for the sedition cases in future. The main impacts of the case are as follows :-

• Safeguarded Free Speech by narrowing the scope and ambit of sedition which also ensured legitimate criticism of the government will not be criminalized.
• The judgment provided clear guidelines for interpreting Section 124A emphasizing the need to establish a direct link between the speech and it’s potential to incite violence or disrupt public order.
• This judgment raised debates on the necessity of sedition law in a democracy and the critics argued that the law was a colonial vestige and argued for its reform or repeal .
• The Case underscored the importance of protecting political activism and dissent thus inspiring social activists , journalists and advocates for civil liberties and human rights.

References

^[1]Indian Penal Code section 124A (1860).

^[2]Indian Penal Code section 505 (1860).

^[3]INDIA CONST.  art 19, cl.1(a).

^[4] INDIA CONST.  art 19, cl.2.