Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I will now advert once more to clause (2) of article 19 and state what I consider to be the reason for inserting in it the words "matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State." It is well recognized in all systems of law that the right to freedom of speech and expression or freedom of the press means that any person may write or say what he pleases so long as he does not infringe the law relating to libel or slander or to blasphemous, obscene or seditious words or writings: (see Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Vol. II, page 391). This is prac- tically what has been said in clause (2) of article 19, with this difference only that instead of using the words "law relating to sedition," the framers of the Constitution have used the words mentioned above. It is interesting to note that sedition was mentioned in the original draft of the Constitution, but subsequently that word was dropped and the words which I have quoted were inserted. I think it is not difficult to discover the reason for this change and I shall briefly state in my own words what I consider it to be.

The latest pronouncement by the highest Indian tribunal as to the law of sedition is to be found in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King(1) which has been quoted again and again and in which Gwyer C.J. laid down that public disor- der, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder, is the gist of the offence of sedition and "the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or (1) [1942] F.C.R. 38.

must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that is their intention or tendency." For this view, the learned Chief Justice relied on certain observations of Fitzgerald J. in R.v. Sullivan (1), and he also added that he was content to adopt "the words of that learned Judge which are to be found in every book dealing with this branch of the criminal law." There is no doubt that what Gwyer C.J. has stated in that case represents the view of a number of Judges and authors and was also the view of Sir James Stephen in regard to whom Cave J. in his charge to the jury in a case relating to the law of sedition JR. v. Burns(2) said :--

(1) [1868] 11 Cox c.c. 44. (2) [1886] 16 cox 855. (8) 74 I.A. There can be no justification for restricting the contents of the section by the marginal note. In England there is no statutory definition of sedition; its meaning and content have been laid down in many decisions, some of which are referred to by the Chief Justice, but these decisions are not relevant when you have a statutory definition of that which is termed sedition as we have in the present case.

Their Lordships are unable to find anything in the language of either section 124A or the Rule which could suggest that 'the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that this is their intention or tendency." The framers of the Constitution must have therefore found themselves face to face with the dilemma as to whether the word "sedition" should be used in article 19 (2) and if it was to be used in what sense it was to be used. On the one hand, they must have had before their mind the very widely accepted view supported by numerous authorities that sedition was essentially an offence against public tranquil- lity and was connected in some way or other with public disorder; and, on the other hand, there was the pronounce- ment of the Judicial Committee that sedition as defined in the Indian Penal Code did not necessarily imply any inten- tion or tendency to incite disorder. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that they decided not to use the word "sedition" in clause (2) but used the more general words which cover sedition and everything else which makes sedi- tion such a serious offence. That sedition does undermine the security of the State is a matter which cannot admit of much doubt. That it undermines the security of the State usually through the medium of public disorder is also a matter on which eminent Judges and jurists are agreed. Therefore it is difficult to hold that public disorder or disturbance of public tranquillity are not matters which undermine the security of the State.

Another class of offences against public tranquillity are those in which no actual force is either employed or displayed, but in which steps are taken tending to cause it. These are the formation of secret societies, seditious conspiracies, libels or words spoken.

Under these two heads all offences against the internal public tranquillity of the State may be arranged."

This passage brings out two matters with remarkable clarity. It shows firstly that sedition is essentially an offence against public tranquillity and secondly that broadly speaking there are two classes of offences against public tranquillity: (a) those accompanied by violence including disorders which affect tranquillity of a considerable number of persons or an extensive local area, and (b) those not accompanied by violence but tending to cause it, such as seditious utter- ances, seditious conspiracies, etc. Both these classes of offences are such as will undermine the security of the State or tend to overthrow it if left unchecked, and, as I have tried to point out, there is a good deal of authorita- tive opinion in favour of the view that the gravity ascribed to sedition is due to the fact that it tends to seriously affect the tranquillity and security of the State. In principle, then, it would not have been logical to refer to sedition in clause (2) of article 19 and omit matters which are no less grave and which have equal potentiality for undermining the security of the State. It appears that the framers of the Constitution preferred to adopt the logical course and have used the more general and basic words which are apt to cover sedition as well as other matters which are as detrimental to the security of the State as sedition. If the Act is to be viewed as I have suggested, it is difficult to hold that section 7 (1) (c) falls outside the ambit of article 19 (2). That clause clearly states that nothing in clause (1) (a) shall affect the operation of any existing law relating to any matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. I have tried to show that public disorders and disturbance of public tranquillity do undermine the security of the State and if the Act is a law aimed at preventing such disorders, it fulfils the requirement of the Constitution. It is needless to add that the word "State" has been defined in article 12 of the Constitution to include "the Government and Parlia- ment of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."