What did the Supreme Court decide in Kedarnath Singh?

The Court upheld sedition (Section 124A IPC) but limited it to speech that has a tendency or intention to cause public disorder or violence.

Is all criticism of the government sedition after this case?

No. Strong criticism, harsh words, or unpopular views are not sedition unless they incite violence or disorder.

How does Article 19(2) apply here?

Speech that threatens public order can be reasonably restricted under Article 19(2). The judgment reads Section 124A in line with this limit.

What is meant by 'Government established by law'?

It refers to the visible symbol of the State, not any political party. Attacks on the State by violent means are penal, mere criticism is not.

Does Section 505 IPC still operate?

Yes, but like Section 124A, it must be applied narrowly to acts that promote disorder or violence, not mere opinion.

Law Easy

01 November, 2025

1401

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar — Sedition (Section 124A IPC) & Free Speech | The Law Easy

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar

Sedition, free speech, and public order — the 1962 guide to where the line is drawn.

Supreme Court of India 1962 Bench: 5 Judges AIR 1962 SC 955 Sedition • Free Speech • Public Order 6 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 1962-01-20

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court said: sedition law stays, but it is narrow. Speech is not sedition unless it incites violence or has a clear tendency to cause public disorder. Strong criticism of the Government is not a crime by itself.

Issues

Are Sections 124A (sedition) and 505 IPC inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) (free speech)?
Can they be saved as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (public order)?

Rules

Penal Rules

Section 124A IPC: Sedition (words that bring the Government established by law into hatred or contempt).
Section 505 IPC: Statements creating or promoting public mischief.

Constitutional Rules

Article 19(1)(a): Free speech.
Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions for public order, etc.
“Government established by law” = visible symbol of the State, not a political party.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline

Kedarnath Singh gave a speech criticising the ruling party. He was charged with sedition and public mischief.

The trial magistrate convicted him under Sections 124A and 505(b) IPC.

The Patna High Court upheld the conviction, calling the speech seditious as a whole.

Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing violation of free speech under the Constitution.

Arguments

Appellant (Kedarnath Singh)

Political criticism is protected by Article 19(1)(a).
Sedition cannot cover mere disapproval or harsh words.
Sections 124A/505 are vague unless tied to public disorder.

State (Respondent)

The State must protect public order and stability.
Speech that spreads disaffection can trigger unrest.
Restrictions under Article 19(2) allow such laws.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment highlight for Kedarnath Singh case

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 124A and 505 IPC but applied a strict limit:

Only speech that incites violence or has a tendency to cause public disorder can be punished.
Government established by law = the State’s lawful authority, not a party in power.
Mere criticism, even strong or unpleasant, is not sedition.
Thus, the provisions survive as reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Ratio Decidendi

Free speech is the rule; restriction is the exception. Sedition applies only when words are linked to disorder or violence. Law protects the State’s existence, not a ruling party’s image.

Why It Matters

Draws the incitement line for sedition cases.
Shields political criticism from criminal law.
Guides police and courts on narrow application of 124A/505.
Connects penal law with Article 19(2) limits.

Key Takeaways

Speech first: Criticism ≠ sedition.

Trigger needed: Violence or disorder risk.

19(2) lens: Only narrow, public-order limits.

State vs Party: Law protects the State, not a party.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CIVIC” — Criticism ok, Incitement needed, Violence/disorder test, Interpret narrowly, Constitutional limits (19(2)).

Spot if speech targets the State or just a party.
Check for incitement/tendency to public disorder.
Apply Article 19(2) and keep the law narrow.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Are Sections 124A and 505 IPC compatible with Article 19(1)(a)?

Rules: Sections 124A/505 IPC; Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(2); “Government established by law”.

Application: The Court reads the provisions to cover only speech that incites or tends to cause disorder/violence; mere criticism is outside their scope.

Conclusion: Provisions upheld but narrowed; only inciting or disorder-causing speech is punishable.

Glossary

Sedition (124A): Offence about speech against the State, limited to incitement to disorder.
Public Order: Peace and safety in society; a ground for restricting speech.
Tendency Test: Whether words are likely to cause disorder or violence.

FAQs

Not by itself. It is sedition only if it incites violence or has a clear tendency to disrupt public order.

The law protects the State, not any political party. Criticising the party in power is not sedition.

A narrow reading aligned with Article 19(2): only incitement or clear tendency to disorder can be punished.

It applies with the same caution: target public mischief that risks disorder, not mere opinion or criticism.

Reviewed by The Law Easy Constitutional Law Human Rights Criminal Law

```

Comment

Nothing for now