Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sedition and Related Offences

  • Chapter
Freedom of the Press in India

  • 94 Accesses

Abstract

“Security and liberty, in their pure form, are antagonistic poles. The one pole represents the interest of the politically organised society in its self-preservation. The other represents the interest of the individual in being afforded the maximum sight of self-assertion, free from governmental and other interference.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. B. Schwartz, American Constitutional Law, p. 240

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frankfurter, J., in Dennis v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 494 at 524 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R. 594

    Google Scholar 

  3. Quoted in Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697 at 717-718

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gitlow v. New York, (1925) 268 U.S. 652

    Google Scholar 

  5. Whitney v. California, (1927) 274, U.S. 357

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stromberg v. California, (1931) 283, U.S. 359

    Google Scholar 

  7. U.S. v. Burleson, (1921) 255 U.S. 407

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schaefer v. U.S. (1920) 253 U.S. 142

    Google Scholar 

  9. Debs v. U.S. (1919) 249 U.S. 211

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. v. Macintosh, (1931) 283 U.S. 605 13 Abrams v. U.S. (1919) 250 U.S. 616

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. y. Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 54

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, 1935, vol. II, p. 306

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. y. Burns, (1886) 16 Cox C.C. 355

    Google Scholar 

  14. Maurice Collis, Trials in Burma (1938) p. 112

    Google Scholar 

  15. id. p. 213

    Google Scholar 

  16. Queen Empress v. J. C. Bose, (1891) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 35

    Google Scholar 

  17. Queen Empress v. B. G. Tilak, (1897) I.L.R. 22 Born. 112

    Google Scholar 

  18. id. at 134

    Google Scholar 

  19. 1897) I.L.R. 22 Born. 112. It may be noted that when Strachey, J., interpreted the section, the words “hatred” and “contempt” were not included in the definition of sedition; and Parsons, J., in Queen Empress v. Ramchandra Narain could not see how “hatred” could be included in the connotation of “disaffection”. The learned judge

    Google Scholar 

  20. Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. King Emperor, (1942) 5 F.L.J. 47 at 57 (F.C.)

    Google Scholar 

  21. L.R. 741.A. 89

    Google Scholar 

  22. L.R. 1917 A.C. 406

    Google Scholar 

  23. id. at 466.

    Google Scholar 

  24. N. D. Mazumdar v. King Emperor (1942) 5 F.L.J. 47 at 56-57 (F.C.)

    Google Scholar 

  25. A.I.R. 1951 Panjab 27

    Google Scholar 

  26. Debi Soran y. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1954 Patna 254

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ram Nandan v. The State, A.I.R. 1959 All. 101

    Google Scholar 

  28. idem at p. 114

    Google Scholar 

  29. As it was enacted by the British Indian government, the same section is found in the Pakistan Penal Code also.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P.L.D. 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 142

    Google Scholar 

  31. The reference is to the Pakistan Constitution which was abrogated in 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Article 13(I) declares all existing laws, in so far as they are inconsistent with the guaranteed fundamental rights, to be void to the extent of the inconsistency.

    Google Scholar 

  33. P.L.D. 1958 (W.P.) Peshawar 15

    Google Scholar 

  34. a idem. pp. 18-19

    Google Scholar 

  35. b In the Commonwealth legislation a seditious document is defined as one displaying an intention to bring the sovereign into hatred and contempt, to excite disaffection against the Sovereign, the government, constitution, Parliament of Britain, the Dominions, the Commonwealth, and the States; to advocate the alteration otherwise than by lawful means of any matter established by law; to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of people. But it is not seditious to show in

    Google Scholar 

  36. Report, Part I paragraph 1054

    Google Scholar 

  37. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  38. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See infra, p.52

    Google Scholar 

  40. Emperor v. Maniben Kara, (1932) 34 Born. L.R. 1642

    Google Scholar 

  41. 1936) L.J. Newspaper 310

    Google Scholar 

  42. 1950 S.C.J. 418; 1950 S.C.R. 594

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tara Singh Gopichand v. State of East Panjab, A.I.R. 1951 Panjab 27

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tilok Chand v. The State, A.I.R. 1954 Ajmer 19

    Google Scholar 

  45. Section 3(v) of the Act enabled government to take action where matter likely “to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people in India” was published.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tilok Chand v. The State, A.I.R. 1954 Ajmer 19 at p. 20

    Google Scholar 

  47. It may be recalled that the Penal Code enacted by the British Indian Government is the same in both India and Pakistan, except for a few amendments effected after the division of India into two Dominions.

    Google Scholar 

  48. State v. Abdul Gaffar Khan, P.L.D. 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 142

    Google Scholar 

  49. Report, Part I, paragraph 1055

    Google Scholar 

  50. Press Laws Enquiry Committee, Report, paragraph 71

    Google Scholar 

  51. Report of the Committee, paragraph 64

    Google Scholar 

  52. Report of the Press Commission, paragraph 1048. Article 3550 C of the Penal Law of the Federal Republic of Germany provides that any person who discloses the contents of “an official document labelled secret or confidential” is liable to punishment. This is a provision which German journalists regard with intense disfavour.

    Google Scholar 

  53. a Article 4(7) of Chapter VII of the Press Law of Sweden, however, prohibits defamatory utterances in print against the I-lead or representative of a foreign power in the Kingdom if such utterances have been declared punishable by legislation. This Act forms part of the Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. v. Gordon (1787) 22 St. Tr. 213

    Google Scholar 

  55. Stephen, Digest of Criminal Law, Article 133 67 R. v. Antonelli, 70 J.P. 4

    Google Scholar 

  56. Press Commission of India, Report, Part I, Paragraph 993

    Google Scholar 

  57. id., paragraph 1146

    Google Scholar 

  58. Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code provides: A foreign State may sue in any Court in India, provided the object of the suit is to enforce a private right vested in the Ruler of such State or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Article 367(3) of the Constitution of India provides: “For the purposes of this Constitution foreign State’ means any State other than India, provided that, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the President may by order declare any State not to be a foreign State for such purposes as may be specified in the order.” In Jagannath Satha v. Union of India (1960 S.C.J. 975) the Supreme Court of India observed that under the Order, for the purposes of Articles 18, 19(2), 102, 191 and any other Article where the expression foreign State’ appears, “that expression would not cover a country within the Commonwealth unless Parliament enacted otherwise.” (at p. 978)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cherpunkal, Kerala, India

    Joseph Minattur

Authors
  1. Joseph Minattur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1961 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Minattur, J. (1961). Sedition and Related Offences. In: Freedom of the Press in India. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9103-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9103-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8398-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9103-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation