Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 243 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962

Reserved On: 15.7.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 July, 2025

AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 26) 45.7. (g) "We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace." (Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 27) As the statement of law at para 45.5 above indicates, it applies to cases under Sections 124-A and 505IPC.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserved On: 12.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2025

( Kedar Nath Singh case [Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bi- har, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955], SCC OnLine SC para 27) As the statement of law at para 45.5 above indicates, it applies to cases under Sections 124-A and 505IPC. According to this Court, only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence are rendered penal.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 769, the challenge was to the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Two views were before this Court with regard to the ambit of the said section. One which held that words, deeds or writings constituted the offence of sedition under the said section only when they had the intention or tendency to disturb public tranquility, to create public disturbance or to promote disorder. The other view was that it was not an essential ingredient of the offence of sedition under the said section that the words, deeds or writings should be intended to or be likely to incite public disorder. The latter view of the section would have rendered it unconstitutional. It is in these circumstances that this Court held that the former view' should be taken which would render the said section consti- tutional. The Court in that connection also further held that keeping in mind the reasons for the introduction of the said section and the history of sedition the former view was the correct interpretation of the ambit of the said section.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Bharat vs State on 18 April, 2012

The Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (supra) has held that the expression "Government established by law" has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. "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 124A has been characterised, comes under Chapter VI relating to offences against the State. Hence, any acts within the meaning of section 124A 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 other words, any written or spoken words, etc. which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government by violent means, which are compendiously included in the term "revolution" have been made penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however strictly worded, expressing disapprobation of the actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of the Government or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, i.e. to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence. Adverting to the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this court, a plain reading of the articles in respect of which the first information reports have been lodged clearly reveal that the same do not in any manner have the tendency of subverting the Government by violence means, nor do the same have the effect of creating hatred, disaffection or contempt for the Government. The articles merely comment in strong terms upon the measures of the Government namely, appointment of the second respondent as the Police Commissioner considering his background as brought out in the series of articles based upon records of the CBI. It appears that by publishing the said article, the applicants seek to ameliorate the conditions of the people and to secure the cancellation and alteration of the acts of the Government namely, appointment of the second respondent as Police Commissioner, without exciting feelings of enmity or disloyalty in the public at large. Commenting on the wisdom of the Government in making a particular appointment, in the opinion of this court, would not fall within the ambit of section 124A I.P.C. The news items in question would clearly fall within the ambit of the second and third explanations to section 124A IPC. Under the circumstances, the ingredients to constitute an offence under section 124A IPC are clearly missing in the facts of the present cases. As held by the Apex Court in the decisions cited hereinabove, a citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government or its measures, by criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with intention to create public disorder.
Gujarat High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Reserved On: 16.12.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 January, 2026

1962 Supp (2) SCR 769: AIR 1962 SC 955, SCC OnLine SC para 26) 45.7. (g) "We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace." (Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 6:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arup Bhuyan vs The State Of Assam Home Department on 24 March, 2023

Post Kedar Nath Singh (supra) on the recommendation of the National Integration Council, Article 19(2) and 19(4) which operate as exception to freedom of speech and freedom of association respectively, have been amended to specifically include an exception as to “sovereignty and integrity of India”. Therefore, the same will have a material bearing on any question as to the application of Articles 19 & 21 in the context of UAPA. Thus, UAPA is to be interpreted in congruence with the amendment of the Constitution in 1963 including “sovereignty and integrity of India” as an exception to Article 19.
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 4 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next