Invoking the offence of Sediton

Under the Indian law, free speech falls under the provision of Article 19(1)(a). Freedom of speech and expression allows free flow of ideas and thought process. Free speech enables free flow of thoughts and it gives breathing space to the citizen to voice their opinions and concerns against the government or any of its institutions. But this right is not absolute and there are certain limitations, enumerated under Article 19(2). Article 19(2) of the Constitution authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of… public order.” 

Sedition falls under the Indian Penal Code (Section 124A) as an offence committed when "any person 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". Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offence under this section.

There have been several times when the line dividing sedition law and freedom of speech and expression has been blurred. Many times it has been misused and it tends to have a very chilling effect on the general public. In Tara Singh v. State, the East Punjab High Court held that section 124-A has no place in a new democratic setup and it curtailed the freedom of speech and expression. 

Indramani Singh v. State of Manipur, it was held that Section 124A is partly void and partly valid. Exciting mere disaffection or attempting to cause disaffection is ultra vires, but the restriction under Article 19(2) to excite hatred or contempt against the Government established by law in India, is valid.

Hence there are several case laws which have stated different aspects, but as of now the law of sedition stands as constitutionally valid.

To answer the first part of question, there have been several cases where when such things are shouted out in public, it has been considered as sedition.

Hi,

Your question is regarding if sedition is in contrast to Freedom of expression.

Article 19(1)(a) endows individuals the fundamental right to freedom and expression which is reasonably restricted by Article 19(2) in the interest of public order when pertaining to sedition.

Sedition is an offence mentioned under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, penalizes words, signs or representations that provoke or intend to provoke hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the government, with imprisonment of up to three years.

But for the purposes of determining whether an offence of sedition has been committed under Section 124A of the IPC, what is to be checked is if these slogans and placards qualify as legal wrongs.

Constitutionality of Section 124-A IPC

Supreme Court, in the case of Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 266/1995, categorically held that the shouting of stray slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” and “Hindustan Murdabad” does not qualify as sedition

The Supreme Court had constitutionalized and limited the scope of sedition in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar by restricting it to instances where individuals through their speech and expression disrupt the law or provoke and incite violence.

Law Commission recently spoke on sedition and suggested invoking 124A to only criminalize acts committed with the intention to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Government with violence and illegal means.

In September 2016, the Supreme Court reiterated these necessary safeguards and held that they should be followed by all authorities.

In contrast to Democracy:

India is the largest democracy of the world and the right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy.

Section 124A is a relic of colonial legacy and unsuited in a democracy. It is a constraint on the legitimate exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. The expression or thought that is not in consonance with the policy of the government of the day should not be considered as sedition. The Law Commission has rightly said, "an expression of frustration over the state of affairs cannot be treated as sedition". If the country is not open to positive criticism, there would be no difference between the pre- and post-Independence eras.

I hope this solves your query.

Regards,

Archit.

It is advisable to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for appreciation of facts/ documents, professional guidance and necessary proceeding, if it is not an academic time-pass topic for debate.