HariOm : RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SEDITION

HariOm :

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SEDITION

The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) provides that every citizen has been granted the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19 (2) incorporates the following restrictions on the right to freedom of speech :
1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
2. Security of the state
3. Friendly relations with foreign states
4. Public order
5. Decency or morality
6. Contempt of Court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an offence
On the other hand, sedition was originally included in the draft IPC by Lord MaCaulay but was dropped when IPC was enacted in 1860. Bowever, it was introduced under section 124-A in 1870. Very importantly, it was considered draconian after independence as it was colonial.
Section 124-A of IPC writes that whoever, 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 shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine may be added, or with fine. The explanation to the section says that the expression 'disaffection' includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
The Supreme Court (SC) in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950, SC 129 and Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 cases held that laws of sedition were not compatible with the constitution. Further, the SC in Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 1749 case has explained the difference between public order and security of state. Anything that disturbs public peace or public tranquility disturbs public order; but mere criticism of the government does not necessarily disturb public order. On the the other hand, all the utterances intended to endanger the security of the state by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and rebellion against the government; external aggression or war constitute the security of the state.
Over the period, a number of constitutional and legal experts were of the view that section 124 A should be repealed. However, the SC in Kedar Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 case upheld the constitutional validity of section 124-A of IPC.
Debates were once again raised when the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 case declared section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional. The Court ruled that speech howsoever, offensive, annoying or inconvenient can not be prosecuted unless its utterances has,at the least, a proximate connection with any incitement to disrupt public order.
In fact, in 1942, Sir Maurice Gwyer the Chief Justice of the Federal Court ruled that public disorder or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the gist of the offence called sedition.

For more plz visit our website, Blog/Facebook page

www.competition4you2.blogspot.com

www.fb.com/pkskmrgreen

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1007054729323105

#Competition For You