Is Ram Manoharlohia And Binding Authority On The Issue? Essay

1304 Words Mar 5th, 2016 6 Pages
The first recorded state trial for sedition is that of Queen Empress v. JogendraChunder Bose In this case, Disaffection was defined as the use of spoken or written words to create a disposition in the minds of those to whom the words were addressed, not to obey the lawful authority of the government, or to resist that authority. It was also observed that: “It is sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used are calculated to excite feelings of ill-will against the Government, and to hold it up to the hatred and contempt of the people, and that they were used with an intention to create such feeling.”
In the case of Ram ManoharLohia, the Court held that the restriction in question must have a proximate relation with the object sought to be achieved, must be proportionate and must not be ‘remote, arbitrary or fanciful’. Being a five-judge bench decision, this case is the locus classicus and binding authority on the issue. In Rangarajan as well, the Court held that the anticipated danger should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression, and likened it to the infamous “spark in a powder keg”. In the case of Indra Das, Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam , the Supreme Court has applied the modern American test of a ‘clear and present danger’. Laid down most prominently in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg v Ohio the test requires that restrictions cannot be placed on speech unless it is directed to inciting, and is…

Related Documents