BY ARUSHI SRALECH.
The core issue that arose was whether ‘sedition’ is used as an exception under Article 19(2). Finally, in 1962, in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court dealt with the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC. The matter was heard by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B.P. Sinha. The Supreme Court, while ascertaining the constitutionality of Section 124A, referred to the phrases ‘security of state’ and ‘public order’ found under clause (2) of Article 19 of the constitution. Also, the court struck a balance between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public order or security of the state.
Whether or not the law of sedition, as it stands, is violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution has been a debatable issue ever since the constitution came into force.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is considered indispensable for the preservation of a democratic society wherein the citizens are active participants in the political affairs and form the foundation of such a society. In this republic, the citizen is supreme and the government is an organization through which citizens exercise their supremacy through the executive power which vests in the President and the Governors. Therefore, the right to criticize government and to call government to account is far superior to the right of government to protect itself against sedition. The words ‘treason’ and ‘sedition’ have to be used with great care and caution in a democracy.
The constitutional validity of sedition is in direct relation with the freedom of speech and expression, as it is one of the most valuable rights provided under the constitution unless justified under clause (2) of Article 19.