Fact of the case :

Kedarnath Singh, a leader of the Forward Communist Party in Bihar, made a public speech that was critical of the Government, specifically targeting the Congress Party’s capitalist policies. In his speech, he used strong language to criticize the ruling party and its policies. He referred to the Congress Party in derogatory terms and suggested that there was a need for a revolution to overthrow the government. The authorities, seeing his speech as a threat to public order and peace, filed charges against him under Section 124A (sedition) and Section 505 (inciting public mischief) of the IPC (S 353 BNS). Singh was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Issues Involved

Whether Sections 124A and 505 (353 of BNS) of the Indian Penal Code are ultra vires in view of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution?

Dissatisfied with the decision, Singh appealed to the High Court of Patna. The High Court upheld his conviction, dismissing his appeal. Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the IPC and arguing that it infringed upon his fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

HELD : The Constitution bench upheld the validity of Section 124A and Section 124-A does not violate Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it is a reasonable restriction. The Court also added that the protection of freedom of speech should be safeguarded to its full extent, but reasonable restrictions are necessary for the safety and integrity of the State.

Note: The offence of sedition under section 124-A of IPC has though been done away in the BNS, but a new provision in section 152 , somewhat similarly worded, has been brought in by the law makers in Parliament. It criminalizes acts or attempts that incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or encourage separatist sentiments that threaten the country’s stability.