LexKEDAR NATH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
769
framed thereunder which required licences to be
taken out for storage of tobacco and for payment of
licence fee in respect thereof and to that extent the
provisions imposing an obligation to take out
licences and to pay licence fees under the Tobacco
Acts of Travancore and the Cochin States were
superseded and the State of Travancore-Cochin had
no authority to promulgate rules 14, 15 and 16
under the Notification issued in the Travancore-
Cochin Government Gazett.e dated January 25, 1951,
and to levy licence fee for storage of tobacco.
It is unnecessary to ·consider whether the
remaining provisions of the Travancore and the
Cochin Tobacco Acts and th~ Rules framed there-
under were law correspondirrg with the Central
Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
For these reasons I agree that the appeals be
allowed, and the order passed by the High Court be
set aside. In each petition a writ will issue declar-
ing that the levy of licence fee undPr the Notifica-
tion dated January 25, 1951, is without authority
of law, and that the State of Travanc.1re-Cochin
do forbear from levying and collecting the licence
fee.
Appeals allowed.
KEDAR NATH SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(B. P. SINHA, C,J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARand J.R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.)
Sedition-Content of-Siatute pa11aliai11g
lfeditian and
statement• e-0nduci11g to public mischief-Constitutio11alit11 of-
Whetkerinfringesfreedom cf apeech--lndian l'e•al Code, 1860
(Act XLV of 1860), ss. 12!A, 50j-Constitution of India,
Art6. (19)(l}(a}, 19(2).
Secdon 124:\ of the Indian Penal Code which makes
sedition an offence is· constitutionally valid. Though the
section imposes restrictions on the fundam,ntal freedom of
I96t
A. lie ,j/)tfuJhdlr
v.
Tiu 8tat1 of Kerola
Blah J.
1~1
li•ti•r N•tA Sin1h
..
Slldl •f BWir
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP.
speech and expression, the restrictions are in the interest of
public order and are within the ambit of permissiblr. legisla-
ti\'e intrrferrnce with the fundamental right. Th<re is a
confli.ct on the <juestion of the ambit of s. 124A between
decision of the Federal Court and of the Privy Council. The
Federal Court has hdd that words, deeds or writings constitu-
trd an offence nuder s. 12-!A only when they had the intention
or tendency to disturb public tranquility. to create public
disturbance or to promote disorder; whilst the Privy Council
has taken the view that it was not an essential ingredient of
the offence of sedition under s. 124A that the words etc,
should be intended to or be likely to incite public disorder.
Either view can he taken and supported on good reasonss.
If
the view taken by the Federal Court was accepted s. 124A
\vould be use constitutional but if the view of the Privy Council
'''as accepted it would he unconstitutional. It is well settled
that if c~rtain provisions of law construed in one way \\·ould
n1ake then1 cr1nsiste-nt \\·ith the constitution, and another
i11terpretatirin \vould render them unconstitutional, the Court
v.·otild Jean in favour of the former construction.
Keeping in
mind the ""'ons for the introduction of•· 124A and the history
of sedirion the ~cction must be so construed as to limit its
application to acts involving intention or tendency to crcat
disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to
violence.
Niharrndu Dult Majumcla.r v. King Emptror, (1942)
F. C. R. 38, followed.
King Rmptror v. Sada.hivNarayan Bha/erao, (1947) L.R.
74 I.A. 89 and WaUaa Johnson '" The King (1940) A. C. 231,
not followed.
Romes/, T!.apar v. The Stale of Madras. (1050) S. C R.
594. Rrij mu.•han v. Ti.e State of Ddhi. (1950) S. C.R. 605
and R,,mji lo/ Modi v. Th• State U. l'. (1957) S. C.R. 860,
f('ferred to.
,.
The l}:w~aUmmunit11 Company Limited v. The State of
J,•hur, (10.1:1;. S. C R. (,1)3 and R. M. D. Cl,amar6a11gu-a/.a v.
'/'/,., t•,,;,,,, rf India, [1957] S. C.R. 936 applied.
Each one of the c:on<.tituent elements of the offence
of 1~akin.g, pu.blbhi~g or circulating: !ltatements conducing to
public: much 1ef.
pur11sh~tble under s . .505 of the Indian Pchal
Code, ~ad reference. tn,
~rid a dirt~ct efrer:t ~n_. the security
of the State nr pulilir; c1r<.1-r.
1-len<:c the provhtons of s. 505
wt-rr clearly s:lvcd by .i\rt. I 111 ~}.
f;nun".u. ArrEJ.L\T1·: .T1•1:1~11w1 ,.,.._ :- f;rimiual
Appeal No. Hill of l!Jli7.
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
771
Appeal by spExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.