Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

Supreme Court of India · 20 January 1962 · 5 judges · 1962 AIR 955; 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769

Sections 124A and 505 IPC were upheld as reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order under Article 19(2), with Section 124A read down to cover only words that incite violence or tend or intend to create public disorder.

Facts

Kedar Nath Singh, speaking at a meeting at Barauni in May 1953, attacked the Congress Government in strong terms and spoke of revolution. He was convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 124A and 505(b) IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and the Patna High Court dismissed his appeal. In his special leave petition he challenged both sections as inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a). In three connected cases from Uttar Pradesh, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had held Section 124A ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) and set aside the convictions or granted the writ; the State appealed on certificates. The appeals were heard together by a Constitution Bench.

Questions before the Court

Are Sections 124A and 505 IPC void as violating the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
Should Section 124A be read in the sense given by the Federal Court in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar (tendency to public disorder) or in the literal sense given by the Privy Council?

What the Court held

Apart from Article 19(2), Sections 124A and 505 clearly violate Article 19(1)(a), but the words 'in the interests of public order' in amended Article 19(2) are of great amplitude, and a law enacted in the interest of public order may be saved.
Where one construction of a provision makes it constitutional and another makes it invalid, the Court leans towards the former. Section 124A is confined to words and acts that involve an intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.
Criticism of Government measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, made without exciting feelings that generate public disorder by violence, is outside the section. A citizen may say or write whatever he likes about the Government so long as he does not incite violence or intend to create public disorder.
Every element of the offence under Section 505 has a direct effect on the security of the State or public order, so it is saved by Article 19(2).
Criminal Appeal 169 of 1957 was dismissed. The Uttar Pradesh appeals were allowed and remanded to the High Court to pass orders in light of this interpretation.

Why it matters

The judgment upholds the law of sedition only as read down: Section 124A is confined to speech or writing with an intention or tendency to create public disorder or incite violence, and does not reach strong criticism of the Government or its measures. In doing so the Court prefers the Federal Court's view in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar to the Privy Council's literal reading, and applies the rule that a provision should be construed so as to keep it within constitutional limits.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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.”

Court (B.P. Sinha, CJ)Page 25 of the judgment

“It is well settled that if certain provisions of law construed in one way would make them consistent with the Constitution, and another interpretation would render them unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former construction. The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.”

Court (B.P. Sinha, CJ)Page 26 of the judgment

“Viewed in that light, we have no hesitation in so construing the provisions of the sections impugned in these cases as to limit their application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.”

Court (B.P. Sinha, CJ)Page 27 of the judgment

“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 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, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”

Court (B.P. Sinha, CJ)Page 24 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 124A, Indian Penal Code
Section 505, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 353 (NCRB correspondence table)
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Constitution

Related judgments

Explains Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)“Those observations were made to bring out the difference between the "security of the State" and "public order". As the latter expression did not find a place in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, as it stood originally, the section was struck down as unconstitutional.” (page 21)

Case and bench

Parties: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1957, with Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 126 of 1958
Decided: 20 January 1962
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. (CJ), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.
Opinions: Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. Sinha, CJ.

Questions on this case

5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.