The constitutional validity of S.124A of the Indian Penal Code was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ________________.

Question

Question

This question was previously asked in

UP Police SI (दरोगा) Official PYP (Held On: 29 Nov 2021 Shift 3)

Answer 1

The correct answer is ‘Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar’

Key Points

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar:
- The constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with sedition, was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962).
- The Court ruled that sedition law could be applied only to acts that have the intention or tendency to incite violence or create public disorder.
- It emphasized that criticism of the government, even if strongly worded, does not amount to sedition unless it incites violence or disrupts public order.
- The judgment balanced the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) with reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2).
- It clarified that Section 124A is not unconstitutional but should be applied carefully to prevent misuse against legitimate dissent.

Additional Information

Incorrect options explained:
- Ram Nandan v. State:
  - In this case (1959), the Allahabad High Court declared Section 124A unconstitutional as it was incompatible with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this judgment was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh.
  - Thus, Ram Nandan v. State does not uphold the constitutional validity of Section 124A.
- ADM Jabalpur v. S Shukla:
  - ADM Jabalpur (1976) was a controversial case related to the suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency and has no connection with sedition or Section 124A.
- KT Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala:
  - This case (1961) dealt with the validity of land tax laws in Kerala and does not pertain to sedition or Section 124A.
Implications of Kedar Nath Singh judgment:
- The judgment is significant because it established safeguards against misuse of the sedition law, ensuring that it does not infringe on the fundamental right to free speech.
- It continues to serve as the guiding precedent for courts in cases dealing with sedition in India.