You are on page 1of 21

Cri.

PIL 3-2015

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

C
ou

CRIMINALPUBLICINTERESTLITIGATIONNO.3OF2015
SanskarMarathe

..Petitioner

versus

ig
h

1.TheStateofMaharashtra
throughCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai.

2.TheSeniorPoliceInspector,
BandraKurlaComplexPoliceStation,
BKC,Mumbai.

ba
y

3.AssemTrivedi,
1/458A,Rishinagar,Shuklaganj,Unnao,
UttarPradesh209861.
..Respondents

om

Mr.SanskarMarathe,petitionerinperson.
Mr.SunilV.Manohar,AdvocateGeneralwithMr.S.K.Shinde,
GovernmentPleaderforrespondentnos.1and2.
Mr.MihirDesaiwithMr.VijayHiremathforrespondentno.3.
CORAM:MOHITS.SHAH,C.J.AND
N.M.JAMDAR,J.
DateofReservingthejudgment:19January2015
Dateofpronouncingthejudgment:17March2015

1 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

ArrestofoneAssemTrivedion8September2012on

C
ou

1.

rt

JUDGMENT(PerChiefJustice):

thebasisofregistrationofFirstInformationReport(`FIR')on
30January2012alleging,interalia,commissionofoffenceof
sedition punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code,1860,ledtofilingofthepresentPublicInterestLitigation

2.

ig
h

whichisnowregisteredasCriminalPIL.
TheallegationintheFIRistotheeffectthatAssem

Trivedi,whoisapoliticalcartoonistandsocialactivist,through
hiscartoons,notonlydefamedParliament,theConstitutionof
IndiaandtheAshokEmblembutalsotriedtospreadhatredand

ba
y

disrespect against the Government and published the said


cartoonson`IndiaAgainstCorruption"website,whichnotonly
amounts to insult under the National Emblems Act but also

om

amountstoseriousactofsedition. AfterthearrestofAssem
Trivedi on 9 September 2012, he was produced before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that
AssemTrivedirefusedtomakeanapplicationforbailtillthe
chargesofseditionweredropped.Contendingthatpublication
and/or posting such political cartoons on website can by no
stretchofimaginationattractaseriouschargeofseditionand
that Assem Trivedi was languishing in jail on account of the
chargeofseditionbeingincludedintheFIR,thepetitioner,a
practicingadvocateinthisCourt,movedthepresentPILon11
2 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

C
ou

thisCourtpassedthefollowingadinterimorder:

rt

September2012.Thematterwasmentionedforcirculationand

"
Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,
bythisadinterimorderwedirectthatMr.Assem
Trivedi be released on bail on executing a
personalbondinthesumofRs.5,000/.

ig
h

Registry tocommunicate thisorder to the


Superintendent,ArthurRoadJail."

Accordingly,Mr.AssemTrivediexecutedapersonal

bondandwasreleasedonbail.

Thereafter, on the returnable date, leave was

ba
y

grantedtoimpleadMr.AssemTrivediasrespondentno.3.
3.

Thethirdrespondentclaimedtohaveexercisedhis

fundamentalrighttothefreedomofspeechandexpressionasa

om

cartoonistandclaimedthathisarrestanddetentionseriously
encroached upon the freedom guaranteedto every citizen by
Article19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
4.

Affidavitinreplydated12October2012cametobe

filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kherwadi Division,


Mumbaistatingthatthethirdrespondenthaddisplayedseveral
cartoonsatapublicmeetingheldon27November2011atthe
MMRDA ground in Mumbai. The said meeting was held in
connection with the movement launched by Anna Hazare

3 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

againstcorruptioninIndia.Apartfromdisplayingthecartoons,
hehadalsouploadedsomeofhiscartoonsonawebsitecalled

C
ou

"CartoonsagainstCorruption".Pursuanttotheabovedisplayof
cartoons, several complaints came to be filed against Aseem
Trivedi.

On10January2012,BandraKurlaComplexPolice
Station received a written complaint from Amit Katarnavare

ig
h

askingthePolicetoregisteranFIR,interalia,underSections
124A,153A,120B,167and109ofIndianPenalCode.When
the said complaints were forwarded to the Directorate of

Prosecutions, Maharashtra State for opinion, the Assistant


Director, Public Prosecution, Brihanmumbai vide his opinion

ba
y

dated10January2012advisedtoinvokeSection124Aofthe
IPC and provisions of State Emblem of India (Prohibition of
ImproperUse)Act,2005. On30January2012,BandraKurla

om

ComplexPoliceStationregisteredanFIRvideCRNo.14of2012
underSection124AofIPC,underSection2ofNationalHonour
Act and under Section 66A of Information Technology Act
basedonstatementofAmitKatarnavare,whichwasrecorded
on30December2011.
5.

In view of the above complaint, a non bailable

warrant came to be issued by Additional Metropolitan


Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 2 August 2012
againstthethirdrespondent.However,hecouldnotbefound
and when he learnt of issuance of a nonbailable warrant
4 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

against him, he surrendered before BandraKurla Complex


PoliceStationon8September2012.On9September2012the

C
ou

Metropolitan Magistrate granted police custody of the third


respondentforsevendays. However,on10September2012,
PoliceproducedhimbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrateashe

hadadmittedtohavedrawnthecartoons. However,thethird
respondentdidnotapplyforbail.Thereafter,asaforesaid,this

ig
h

Courtpassedanorderdated11September2012directingthe
Policetoreleasethethirdrespondentonbailonhisexecuting

6.

personalbond.

Thereafter,BandraKurlaPoliceobtainedopinionof

thethenAdvocateGeneralwithregardtoinvocationofSection

ba
y

124AofIPCtothefactsofpresentcase,amongstotherqueries.
Pursuant to the legal opinion of the then learned Advocate
General,itwasdecidedtodropinvocationofSection124Aof

om

IPC.ThePoliceDepartment,however,tookaviewthatasfaras
application of Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National
HonourAct,1971andSection66(A)ofInformationTechnology
Actisconcerned,thesamewillapplyonlytothreeoutofseven
cartoons,whichwillbedealtwithinaccordancewithlaw.
7.

Inviewoftheabovedevelopments,thecontroversy

aboutinvocationofSection124AofIPCwouldnotsurviveany
longer in the facts of the present case. However, learned
counsel for petitioner submitted that since the Police had
5 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

arbitrarilyinvokedtheseriouschargeofseditionunderSection
124AofIPCinamatterwherethecartoonistwasentitledto

C
ou

exercise his fundamental right to the freedom of speech and

expressionunderArticle19(1)(a)oftheConstitutionofIndia,
this Court may examine the legal position so that such
invocation is not resorted to, in future, in an arbitrary and
irresponsiblemanner.We,therefore,heardthelearnedcounsel

ig
h

forPILpetitioner,learnedAdvocateGeneralfortheStateand
learnedcounselforthirdrespondentMr.AseemTrivedi.
At the outset, we may reproduce Section 124A of

8.

IPCforreadyreference:

om

ba
y

"124ASedition: Whoever, by words, either spoken


orwritten,orbysigns,orbyvisiblerepresentation,or
otherwise,bringsorattemptstobringintohatredor
contempt,orexcitesorattemptstoexcitedisaffection
towardstheGovernmentestablishedbylawinIndia,
shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentforlife,towhich
finemaybeadded,orwithimprisonmentwhichmay
extendtothreeyears,towhichfinemaybeadded,or
withfine.
Explanation1
The expression "disaffection"
includesdisloyaltyandallfeelingsofenmity.
Explanation2 Comments expressing dis
approbationofthemeasuresoftheGovernmentwitha
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means,
without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contemptordisaffection,donotconstituteanoffence
underthissection.

6 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

C
ou

rt

Explanation3 Comments expressing dis


approbationoftheadministrativeorotheractionof
the Government without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constituteanoffenceunderthissection.
Classificationofoffence: PunishmentImprisonment
forlifeandfine,orimprisonmentfor3yearsandfine,
orfineCognizableNonbailableTriablebyCourtof
SessionNoncompoundable."

Article19(1)(a)conferringthefundamentalrightto

ig
h

9.

freedomofspeechandexpressionandArticle19(2) readas

under:

"19.(1)Allcitizensshallhavetheright

om

ba
y

(a) to freedom of speech and expression..."


Thisguaranteedrightissubjecttotherightof
the legislature to impose reasonable
restrictions,theambitofwhichisindicatedby
clause(2),which,initsamendedform,reads
asfollows:
"19 (2) Nothing in subclause (a) of clause
(1)shallaffecttheoperationofanyexisting
law or prevent the State from making any
law,insofarassuchlawimposesreasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said subclause in the
interestsofthesecurityoftheState,friendly
relations with foreign States, public order,
decencyormorality,orinrelationtocontempt
of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence."

7 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

10.

rt

Cri.PIL 3-2015

Intheleadingcaseof KedarNathSinghVs.State

C
ou

ofBihar1,aConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtexamined
thequestionhowfartheoffence,asdefinedinSection124Aof
IPC, is consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article19(1)(a)oftheConstitution,andobserved,interalia,as
under:

...... It has not been questioned before us


that the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.
19(1)(a)ofthefreedomofspeechandexpressionis
notanabsoluteright.Itiscommongroundthatthe
right is subject to such reasonable restrictions as
wouldcomewithinthepurviewofclause(2),which
comprises (a) security of the State, (b) friendly
relations with foreignStates,(c) publicorder, (d)
decencyormorality,etc.,etc.Withreferencetothe
constitutionalityofs. 124A ors. 505 oftheIndian
PenalCode,astohowfartheyareconsistentwith
the requirements of clause (2) of Art. 19 with
particular reference to security of the State and
publicorder,thesection,itmustbenoted,penalises
any spoken or written words or signs or visible
representations, etc., which have the effect of
bringing,orwhichattempttobringintohatredor
contemptorexcitesorattemptstoexcitedisaffection
towards the Government established by law. Now,
the expression "the Government established by
law" has to be distinguished from the persons
forthetimebeingengagedincarryingonthe
administration. "Government established by
law"isthevisiblesymboloftheState.Thevery
existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the
Governmentestablishedbylawissubverted.Hence
the continued existence of the Government
establishedbylawisanessentialconditionofthe

om

ba
y

ig
h

"24.

1 AIR-1962-SC-955

8 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

stabilityoftheState.Thatiswhy'sedition',asthe
offence in s. 124A has been characterised, comes
under Chapter VI relating to offences against the
State.Henceanyactswithinthemeaningofs.124A
whichhavetheeffectofsubvertingtheGovernment
by bringing that Government into contempt or
hatred,orcreatingdisaffectionagainstit,wouldbe
within the penal statute because the feeling of
disloyaltytotheGovernmentestablishedbylawor
enmitytoitimportstheideaoftendencytopublic
disorderbytheuseofactualviolenceorincitement
toviolence.Inotherwords,anywrittenorspoken
words,etc.,whichhaveimplicitinthemtheideaof
subvertingGovernmentbyviolentmeans,whichare
compendiously included in the term 'revolution',
have been made penal by the section in question.
But the section has taken care to indicate clearly
that strong words used to express
disapprobationofthemeasuresofGovernment
withaviewtotheirimprovementoralteration
by lawful means would not come within the
section.Similarly, comments,however strongly
worded,expressingdisapprobationofactionsof
theGovernment,withoutexcitingthosefeelings
which generate the inclination to cause public
disorderbyactsofviolence,wouldnotbepenal.
Inotherwords,disloyaltytoGovernmentestablished
by law is not the same thing as commenting in
strong terms upon the measures or acts of
Government,oritsagencies,soastoamelioratethe
conditionofthepeopleortosecurethecancellation
or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful
means,thatistosay,withoutexcitingthosefeelings
ofenmityanddisloyaltywhichimplyexcitementto
publicdisorderortheuseofviolence.

25. Ithasnotbeencontendedbeforeusthatifa
speechorawritingexcitespeopletoviolenceorhave
thetendencytocreatepublicdisorder,itwouldnot
come within the definition of 'sedition'. What has
beencontendedisthatapersonwhomakesavery
9 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

strong speech or uses very vigorous words in a


writing directed to a very strong criticism of
measuresofGovernmentoractsofpublicofficials,
might also come within the ambit of the penal
section.But,inouropinion,suchwordswrittenor
spokewouldbeoutsidethescopeofthesection.In
this connection, it is pertinent to observe that the
security of the State, which depends upon the
maintenance of law and order is the very basic
considerationuponwhich legislation,with view to
punishingoffencesagainsttheState,isundertaken.
Such a legislation has, on the one hand, fully to
protect and guarantee the freedom of speech and
expression,whichisthesinequononofademocratic
form of Government that our Constitution has
established. This Court, as the custodian and
guarantorofthefundamentalrightsofthecitizens,
hasthedutycastuponitofstrikingdownanylaw
which unduly restricts the freedom of speech and
expressionwithwhichweareconcernedinthiscase.
Butthefreedomhastobeguardedagainstbecoming
a licence for vilification and condemnation of the
Government established by law, in words, which
inciteviolenceorhavethetendencytocreatepublic
disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write
whateverhelikesabouttheGovernment,orits
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.
TheCourt,has,therefore,thedutycastuponitof
drawing a clear line of demarcation between the
ambit of a citizen's fundamental right guaranteed
under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the
power of the legislature to impose reasonable
restrictionsonthatguaranteedrightintheinterest
of,interalia,securityoftheStateandpublicorder.

26. .......Therecanbenodoubtthatapartfrom
theprovisionsofclause(2)ofArt.19,Sections124A
and505areclearlyviolativeofArt.19(1)(a)ofthe
10 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

Constitution.Butthenwehavetoseehowfarthe
savingclause,namely,clause(2)ofArt.19protects
thesectionsaforesaid.Now,asalreadypointedout,
intermsoftheamendedclause(2),quotedabove,
theexpression"intheinterestof....publicorder"are
words of great amplitude and are much more
comprehensive than the expression "for the
maintenance of", as observed by this Court in the
caseofVirendrav.TheStateofPunjab:1958SCR
308atP.317:[(S)AIR1957SC896atP.899].Any
lawwhichisenactedintheinterestofpublicorder
may be saved from the vice of constitutional
invalidity.If,ontheotherhand,weweretoholdthat
evenwithoutanytendencytodisorderorintentionto
create disturbance of law and order, by the use of
words written or spoke which merely create
disaffection or feelings of enmity against the
Government,theoffenceofseditioniscomplete,then
such an interpretation of the sections would make
themunconstitutionalinviewofArt.19(1)(a)read
with clause (2). It is well settled that if certain
provisionsoflawconstruedinonewaywouldmake
themconsistentwiththeConstitution,andanother
interpretation would render them unconstitutional,
the Court would lean in favour of the former
construction.Theprovisionsofthesectionsreadasa
whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonablyclearthatthesectionsaimatrendering
penalonlysuchactivitiesaswouldbeintended,
or have a tendency, to create disorder or
disturbanceofpublicpeacebyresorttoviolence.
Asalreadypointedout,theexplanationsappendedto
the main body of the section make it clear that
criticism of public measures or comment on
Government action, however strongly worded,
wouldbewithinreasonablelimitsandwouldbe
consistentwiththefundamentalrightoffreedom
of speech and expression. It is only when the
words, written or spoken, etc. which have the
pernicious tendency or intention of creating
publicdisorderordisturbanceoflawandorder

11 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

C
ou

rt

thatthelawstepsintopreventsuchactivitiesin
the interest of public order. So construed, the
section, in our opinion, strikes the correct
balance between individual fundamental rights
andtheinterestofpublicorder."
(emphasissupplied)

11.

Thereafter, Supreme Court examined this question

againinBalwantSinghandanotherVs.StateofPunjab 2.On

ig
h

thedateofassassinationofformerPrimeMinisterSmt.Indira
Gandhi,considerabletensionhadbeengeneratedintheStateof
Punjab. The appellants raised three slogans and they were

chargedwiththeoffencespunishableunderSections124Aand
153B of IPC. In that context, the Supreme Court made the

ba
y

followingobservations:

om

"A plain reading of the above Section would show

thatitsapplicationwouldbeattractedonlywhenthe
accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contemptorexcitesorattemptstoexcitedisaffection
towardstheGovernmentestablishedbylawinIndia,
bywordseitherwrittenorspokenorvisiblesignsor
representationsetc. Keepinginviewtheprosecution
evidencethattheslogansasnoticedabovewereraised
a couple of times only by the appellant and that
neithertheslogansevokedaresponsefromanyother
personoftheSikhcommunityorreactionfrompeople
ofothercommunities,wefinditdifficulttoholdthat
upontheraisingofsuchcasualslogans,acoupleof
timeswithoutanyotheractwhatsoever,thechargeof
seditioncanbefounded.Itisnottheprosecutioncase
thattheappellantswereeitherleadingaprocession
or were otherwise raising the slogans with the
intentiontoincitepeopletocreatedisorderorthat

2 AIR-1995-SC-1785

12 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

ig
h

C
ou

rt

the slogans in fact created any law and order


problem. It does not appear to us that the police
shouldhaveattachedmuchsignificancetothecasual
slogansraisedby twoappellants,acoupleoftimes
andreadtoomuchintothem. Theprosecutionhas
admittedthatnodisturbance,whatsoever,wascaused
bytheraisingoftheslogansbytheappellantsand
thatinspiteofthefactthattheappellantsraisedthe
slogansacoupleoftimes,thepeople,ingeneral,were
unaffected and carried on with their normal
activities.Thecasualraisingoftheslogans,onceor
twicebytwoindividualsalonecannotbesaidtobe
aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or
disaffection towards the Government as established
bylawinIndia.Section124AIPC,wouldinthefacts
and circumstances of the case have no application
whatsoeverandwouldnotbeattractedtothefacts
andcircumstancesofthecase."

In Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi 3, the Supreme

ba
y

12.

Courtexplainedseditionasdefinedinsection124AIPCinthe

om

followingwords:

37. Section124Adealswith'Sedition'.Seditionisa
crimeagainstsocietynearlyalliedtothatoftreason,
anditfrequentlyprecedestreasonbyashortinterval.
Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it
embracesallthosepractices,whetherbyword,deed,or
writing,whicharecalculatedtodisturbthetranquility
oftheState,andleadignorantpersonstoendeavourto
subverttheGovernmentandlawsofthecountry.The
objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent
and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the
Government, and bring the administration of justice
intocontempt;andtheverytendencyofseditionisto
incitethepeopletoinsurrectionandrebellion."Sedition
3 (2003) 8 SCC 461

13 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

13.

C
ou

rt

hasbeendescribedasdisloyaltyinaction,andthelaw
considersasseditionallthosepracticeswhichhavefor
their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to
create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to
bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the
Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm,
and generally all endeavours to promote public
disorder.

In S.RangarajanVs.P.JagjivanRam andothers4

ig
h

the Supreme Court considered the fundamental right to


freedomofspeechandexpressioninthecontextofcensorship
under the Cinematograph Act. A Tamil film criticised the

GovernmentpolicyofreservationinGovernmentservice.After
examining the judgments of the Supreme Court of USA, the

om

ba
y

ApexCourtobservedasunder:
7. .... The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press."ThisAmendmentisabsoluteintermsandit
contains no exception for the exercise of the right.
Heavy burden lies on the State to justify the
interference.Thejudicialdecisions,however,limited
thescopeofrestrictionwhichtheStatecouldimpose
inanygivencircumstances.Thedangerrulewasborn
in Schenek v. United States, 249 U.S. 47. Justice
Holmes for a unanimous court, evolved the test of
"clearandpresentdanger".Heusedthedangertestto
determine where discussion ends and incitement or
attemptbegins.Thecoreofhispositionwasthatthe
FirstAmendmentprotectsonlyutterancesthatseeks
acceptance via the democratic process of discussion
and agreement. But "Words that may have all the
effect of force" calculated to achieve its goal by

4 (1989) 2 SCC 574

14 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

circumventing the democratic process are however,


notsoprotected.

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

8.
TheframeworkofourConstitutiondiffersfrom
theFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.Article
19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all
citizenstherighttofreedomofspeechandexpression.
Thefreedomofexpressionmeanstherighttoexpress
onesopinionbywordsofmouth,writing,printing,
pictureorinanyothermanner.Itwouldthusinclude
the freedom of communication and the right to
propagateorpublishopinion.Thecommunicationof
ideas could be made through any medium,
newspaper, magazine or movie. But this right is
subjecttoreasonablerestrictionsongroundssetout
under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The
reasonablelimitationscanbeputintheinterestof
sovereigntyandintegrityofIndia,thesecurityofthe
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order,decencyormoralityorinrelationtocontempt
ofcourt,defamationorincitementtoanoffence.The
Framersdeemeditessentialtopermitimpositionof
reasonablerestrictionsinthelargerinterestsofthe
community and country. They intended to strike a
proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and
thesocialinterestspecifiedunderArticle19(2).

11. Hereagainwefindthedifferencebetweenthe
FirstAmendmenttotheU.S.ConstitutionandArticle
19(1)(a)ofourConstitution.TheFirstAmendment
does not permit any prior restraint, since the
guarantyoffreespeechisinunqualifiedterms.

17. Itwillbethusseenthatcensorshipispermitted
mainlyonsocialinterestspecifiedunderArticle19(2)
oftheConstitutionwithemphasisonmaintenanceof
values and standards of society. Therefore, the
censorship by prior restraint must necessarily be
reasonablethatcouldbesavedbythewellaccepted
principlesofjudicialreview.

15 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

Asregardsthereasonablenessofrestrictiononthegroundof
socialinterestsunderArticle19(2)onthefreedomofspeech

C
ou

and expression, the Apex Court laid down the following


principles:

om

ba
y

ig
h

45. Theproblemofdefiningtheareaoffreedomof
expression when it appears to conflict with the
various social interests enumerated under Article
19(2)maybrieflybetoucheduponhere.Theredoes
indeedhavetobeacompromisebetweentheinterest
offreedomofexpressionandsocialinterests.Butwe
cannotsimplybalancethetwointerests,asiftheyare
of equal weight. Our commitment to freedom of
expression demands that it cannot be suppressed
unlessthesituationscreatedbyallowingthefreedom
are pressing and the community interest is
endangered. The anticipated danger should not be
remote, conjectural or far fetched. It should have
proximateanddirectnexuswiththeexpression.The
expression of thought should be intrinsically
dangeroustothepublicinterests.Inotherwords,the
expressionshouldbeinseparablylockedupwiththe
actioncontemplatedliketheequivalentofa"sparkin
apowderkeg".
53. We end here as we began on this topic.
Freedom of expression which is legitimate and
constitutionallyprotected,cannotbeheldtoransom
byanintolerantgroupofpeople.Thefundamental
freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably
restrictedforthepurposesmentionedinArticle19(2)
andtherestrictionmustbejustifiedontheanvilof
necessity and not the quicksand of convenience of
expediency. Open criticism of Government policies
and operations is not a ground for restricting
expression.Wemustpracticetolerancetotheviewsof
others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to
democracyastothepersonhimself."

16 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

In Sakal Vs. Union of India5 the Supreme Court

C
ou

14.

rt

Cri.PIL 3-2015

observedthatCourtsmustbeevervigilantinguardingthemost
preciousofallthefreedomsguaranteedbytheConstitutioni.e.
freedom of expression and speech. In Manubhai Patel Vs.
StateofGujaratandanother6theGujaratHighCourtobserved

ig
h

thattherecanindeedbenorealfreedomunlessthoughtisfree
andunchecked,notfreethoughtforthosewhoagreewithus
butfreedomforthethoughtwehate.However,theconstitution

does not permit the Legislature to make laws imposing


reasonablerestrictionsonsuchfreedomonthegroundssetout
in clause (2) of Article 19, including in the interests of

ba
y

sovereigntyandintegrityofIndiaandthesecurityoftheState.
15.

Onaperusaloftheaforesaidjudgments,itisclear

om

thattheprovisionsofsection124AofIPCcannotbeinvokedto
penalizecriticismofthepersonsforthetimebeingengagedin
carrying on administration or strong words used to express
disapprobationofthemeasuresofGovernmentwithaviewto
their improvement or alteration by lawful means. Similarly,
comments,howeverstronglyworded,expressingdisapprobation
of actions of the Government,without excitingthose feelings
whichgeneratetheinclinationtocausepublicdisorderbyacts
ofviolence,wouldnotbepenal.Acitizenhasarighttosayor
5 (1962)3-SCR-842
6 1972-Cri.L.J.-388

17 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

writewhateverhelikesabouttheGovernment,oritsmeasures,
bywayofcriticismorcomments,solongashedoesnotincite

C
ou

peopletoviolenceagainsttheGovernmentestablishedbylawor

withtheintentionofcreatingpublicdisorder.Thesectionaims
atrenderingpenalonlysuchactivitiesaswouldbeintended,or
have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public

16.

ig
h

peacebyresorttoviolence.

Cartoons or caricatures are visual representations,

wordsorsignswhicharesupposedtohaveanelementofwit,

humourorsarcasm.Havingseenthesevencartoonsinquestion
drawnbythethirdrespondent,itisdifficulttofindanyelement
of wit or humour or sarcasm. The cartoons displayed at a

ba
y

meetingheldon27November2011inMumbai,asapartof
movement launched by Anna Hazare against corruption in
India, were full of anger and disgust against corruption

om

prevailinginthepoliticalsystemandhadnoelementofwitor
humourorsarcasm.Butforthatreason,thefreedomofspeech
andexpressionavailabletothethirdrespondenttoexpresshis
indignationagainstcorruptioninthepoliticalsysteminstrong
termsorvisualrepresentationscouldnothavebeenencroached
uponwhenthereisnoallegationofincitementtoviolenceor
thetendencyortheintentiontocreatepublicdisorder.
17.

Wedonotfinditnecessarytodwellonthesubject

anyfurther,asthelearnedAdvocateGeneralsubmittedthatthe
18 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

rt

StateGovernmentinHomeDepartmentwillissuethefollowing

(1)

C
ou

guidelinesintheformofaCirculartoallthePolicepersonnel:
In view of the felt need to issue certain

guidelinestobefollowedbyPolicewhileinvoking

Section 124A IPC, the following preconditions


mustbekeptinmindwhilstapplyingthesame:

The words, signs or representations must

ig
h

(i)

bringtheGovernment(CentralorState)into
hatredorcontemptormustcauseorattempt

tocausedisaffection,enmityordisloyaltyto
the Government and the words/signs/
representationmustalsobeanincitementto

ba
y

violence or must be intended or tend to


create public disorder or a reasonable

om

apprehensionofpublicdisorder;

(ii)

Words, signs or representations against


politicians or public servants by themselves
do not fall in this category unless the
words/signs/representations show them as
representativeoftheGovernment;

(iii) Comments expressing disapproval or


criticismoftheGovernmentwithaviewto
obtainingachangeofgovernmentbylawful
19 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

C
ou

seditiousunderSection124A;

rt

means without any of the above are not

(iv) Obscenityorvulgaritybyitselfshouldnotbe

taken into account as a factor or


consideration for deciding whether a case
fallswithinthepurviewofSection124Aof

ig
h

IPC, for they are covered under other


sectionsoflaw;

A legal opinion in writing which gives

(v)

reasons addressing the aforesaid must be


obtained from Law Officer of the District

ba
y

followedwithintwoweeksbyalegalopinion
in writing from Public Prosecutor of the

om

State.

2.(i) AllUnitCommandersaredirectedtofollow
aboveinstructionsscrupulously.
(ii) It must also be kept in mind that the
instructions mentioned above are not
exhaustive and other relevant factors
dependingfromcasetocasemayalsobekept
inmindwhileapplyingSection124Aofthe
IPC.

20 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

Cri.PIL 3-2015

We clarifythatthismatterwasheardonlyonthe

rt

18.

limitedquestionofinvocationofSection124AofIPCandthe

C
ou

permissible lawful restriction on the freedom of speech and


expressionintheinterestsofpublicorderandnotinanyother
respectnorinrespectofanyotheroffenceallegedtohavebeen
committedbythethirdrespondent.

ThePILaccordinglystandsdisposedof.

20.

Wewouldliketoplaceonrecordourappreciation

ig
h

19.

forthevaluableassistancerenderedbyMr.DariusKhambata,

the then learned Advocate General, as well as Mr. Sunil


Manohar, learned Advocate General, Mr.Mihir Desai, learned
counselforthethirdrespondentandMr.Marathe,thepartyin

(CHIEFJUSTICE)

(N.M.JAMDAR,J.)
ABS

om

ba
y

person.

21 / 21

::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 20:38:37 :::

You might also like