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 …show more content…
Soon after the rally which was done without permission, when Tejpal was arrested, a pistol was found with him, which is a clear reflection of his intentions. As per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, the pistol shall be treated as a part of circumstantial evidence, which clearly shows that the whole act was being conspired to wage war and he has full motive and intention of sedition.
In the case of Dr VinayakBinayakSenPiyush v. State Of Chhattisgarh the hon’ble court held that from the prime facie view if the court alleges the charges of sedition and it is evident from its point that this is intended to disturb the public order then it was considered as a case of Sedition.The essence of the crime of sedition consists in the intention with which the language is used, and such intention has to be judged primarily by the language used. In the landmark case of KedarNath, the Court drew a clear distinction between the act of sedition and the incitement to public disorder. Inciting disaffection against the government would not constitute sedition unless it was accompanied by the direct incitement to violence. In fact, it was this distinction that rendered the provision …show more content…
A bunch of stupid are ruling the State letting these Pigs to eat up our share. They need to know that we have the power to revolution, which will come and in the flames of which, these gangs of stupid will be burnt alive and on their ashes will be established a Government which will work for the poor, deprived and downtrodden people of India.”
These statements in themselves are disrespectful and are attempting to bring hatred.
The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal discussed the contents of the expression "freedom of speech and expression". There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a)."
In the instant case, Tejpal did not discussed or advocated his thoughts, but rather abused the government and tried to lower down its image in the eyes of
In the case of Ram ManoharLohia, the Court held that the restriction in question must have a proximate relation with the object …show more content…
Soon after the rally which was done without permission, when Tejpal was arrested, a pistol was found with him, which is a clear reflection of his intentions. As per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, the pistol shall be treated as a part of circumstantial evidence, which clearly shows that the whole act was being conspired to wage war and he has full motive and intention of sedition.
In the case of Dr VinayakBinayakSenPiyush v. State Of Chhattisgarh the hon’ble court held that from the prime facie view if the court alleges the charges of sedition and it is evident from its point that this is intended to disturb the public order then it was considered as a case of Sedition.The essence of the crime of sedition consists in the intention with which the language is used, and such intention has to be judged primarily by the language used. In the landmark case of KedarNath, the Court drew a clear distinction between the act of sedition and the incitement to public disorder. Inciting disaffection against the government would not constitute sedition unless it was accompanied by the direct incitement to violence. In fact, it was this distinction that rendered the provision …show more content…
A bunch of stupid are ruling the State letting these Pigs to eat up our share. They need to know that we have the power to revolution, which will come and in the flames of which, these gangs of stupid will be burnt alive and on their ashes will be established a Government which will work for the poor, deprived and downtrodden people of India.”
These statements in themselves are disrespectful and are attempting to bring hatred.
The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal discussed the contents of the expression "freedom of speech and expression". There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a)."
In the instant case, Tejpal did not discussed or advocated his thoughts, but rather abused the government and tried to lower down its image in the eyes of