Which of the alternatives is a provision of the Indian Penal Code that was challenged as unconstitutional in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar?

Question

Question

This question was previously asked in

UP Police SI (दरोगा) Official PYP (Held On: 22 Nov 2021 Shift 3)

Answer 1

The correct answer is 'Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code'

Key Points

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of sedition.
- It criminalizes any act, speech, or writing that brings or attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection toward the government established by law in India.
- The constitutionality of this provision was challenged in the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962).
- The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but narrowed its scope. It held that the law could only be applied to acts involving incitement to violence or actions intended to disrupt public order.
- The Court emphasized the need to balance freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Additional Information

Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code:
- This section pertains to "waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting the waging of war, against the Government of India."
- While it deals with serious offenses, it was not the provision challenged in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar.
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 120B relates to the criminal conspiracy to commit an offense.
- It does not address issues related to sedition or freedom of speech and was not relevant to the Kedar Nath Singh case.
Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code:
- This section deals with "assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power."
- It is distinct from Section 124A and was not the subject of the constitutional challenge in the Kedar Nath Singh case.