OFFENCES AGAINST STATE

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 617

This article is written by Anam Siddiqui of BALLB of 3^rd Semester of Sadanlal Savaldas Khanna Girls Degree College, Prayagraj , an intern under Legal Vidhya.

Abstract

Crime is something which takes place in every society in different forms, targeted against different individuals, group of individuals, associations etc. Crime has been categorised since ages like offences against individual, offences against state, offences against women, offences against property, offences against marriage, offences against public tranquillity, etc. This article explains mainly those offences which are committed against the state. Offences against the state are mainly committed against the existence of it. Categories of offences against the state are categorised as: waging war, sedition, assaulting officials etc.

Keywords: Assault, Waging war, Sedition, Prisoner of State. Rioting, Disaffection, Law Commission, Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Introduction

The definition of State is very dynamic, varying from ancient to modern thinkers. In simple words we can define state as a group of people organized for maintaining law and order within a territory.

So, Offences against state can be simply understood as those offences which are mainly targeted and directed against the state. These are the criminal activities which are planned against the existence of the state. In order to maintain peace, law and order in the society, it is mandatory that state should punish the offenders.

Every state tries to maintain its sovereignty and supremacy of law. For this purpose, it punishes the law violators.

These offences disorganise public order, peace and national integration. In general sense, following form of crimes are considered as offences against the state:

Assaulting high officials
Waging war
Sedition
Assisting a state prisoner to escape
Treason
Incitement to mutiny, etc.

Chapter VI of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offences against the state.

Let’s study these offences in detail:

Assault on high official:

Section 124 of IPC provides provision regarding assault done on high officials like the president of India, governor of any state etc, with the intension of inducing or compelling them to exercise or refrain to exercise their lawful powers.

The accused assaults or wrongfully restrains such president or governor by means of criminal force.

In it, the accused attempts to influence or instigate the president or governor to exercise or refraining to exercise their powers.

Such offence is made punishable with term of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and also made liable to fine.[1]

Escaping state prisoner:

Section 128, 129 and 130 of IPC deals with the offence of escaping a state prisoner.

The term “State prisoner” means a person whose imprisonment is important to preserve national security and maintain internal order of a country.

Section 128 clearly mentions that anyone who is a public servant and having the custody of state prisoner or prisoner of war, voluntarily allows such prisoner to escape from the place of confinement, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or term extended to ten years and also liable to fine. [2]

Section 129 of IPC states that whoever being a public servant and having the custody of state prisoner, negligently suffers such prisoner to escape from the place of confinement, is made punishable with simple imprisonment extending to three years and also liable to fine.[3]

Section 130 of IPC says that whoever knowingly assist or aid any state prisoner in escaping from lawful custody, or rescues or attempt to rescues or harbour or conceal such prisoner escaped from lawful custody or offer and resistance to the recapture of such prisoner shall be made punishable for imprisonment extended to ten years and also liable to fine.[4]

Waging war:

Waging war can be defined as an attempt of a purposeful act by a means of violence. Intension and purpose of the act are taken into consideration. Several people assemble together against the state to achieve an object of public nature by means of force and violence.

Waging War against the Government of India:

Section 121 of IPC clearly mentions that” whoever wages war against the Government of India, or abets the waging of such war or attempts to wage such war shall be punished for death, or imprisonment of life and also liable to fine.”[5]

Section 121A of IPC makes the conspiracy to commit such offence punishable.

Collecting men, arms, or ammunition with the intension of waging war against the government of India is made punishable under Section 122 of IPC.

Concealing the existence of design to wage war, with an intension to facilitate waging of such war is made punishable under Section 123 of IPC.

Difference between Waging war and Rioting:

Waging war is gathering of people for committing act of public nature which directly strikes against the government and affect the whole community. It is against the government.

Rioting is primarily committed to accomplish act of private nature affecting only those who are engaged in it. It is against the public tranquillity.

Sedition:

Section 124A of IPC deals with sedition. It clearly mentions that “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment extended to three years, to which fine may be added.”[6]

Essential ingredients of sedition:

Disaffection towards government:

It includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. (Explanation 1 of section 124A)

Expressing disapprobation can simply be understood as expressing disapproval.
Explanation 2 of section 124A states that comments expressing disapproval against any measures of the government without exciting hatred, does not constitute the offence of sedition.
Explanation 3 of section 124A states that comments expressing disapproval against any administrative actions of the government without exciting hatred, does not constitute the offence of sedition.
Sedition can include:

1.Words, either written or spoken

2.Signs

3.Visual representation

4.Publications

5.Music

6.Painting

7.Photographs

8.Music and Films, etc.

In case of publication, the author, the editor, the printer or publisher and the user, all of them will be liable equally. Therefore, anyone who write or use such article with the intension of exciting disaffection is guilty of sedition. However, if the content of such article was not known to the accused then he is not guilty of this offence because of absence of the intension.

Pre-Independence case:

Sedition case on Mahatma Gandhi:

A hundred of years ago, on 18^th March 1922, Gandhi ji faced a trial in the session court of Ahmedabad. He wrote three political articles in journal Young India for which he was charged with sedition under section 124-A. The charges against him were of “bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government established by law in British India.

According to MK Gandhi, Section 124A is made to supress the liberty of citizens and stated that affection towards the government could not be manufactured. He was sentenced for 6 years imprisonment.

Sedition case on Bal Gangadhar Tilak:

He was convicted twice for the offence of sedition. Firstly, in 1897, he was convicted for his speeches at a Shivaji festival that lead to the murder of two British officials. Secondly, he was charged for his writings in the Kesari i.e. the Marathi newspaper.

Post-Independence case:

Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962):

Section 124A was put on check under this case. This section was declared as intra vires by the Supreme court. It was held by the court that this section applies only to acts which have intension to disturb law and order and creates violence.

Balwant Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab:

It was held that casual raising of slogan “Khalistan zindabad” by two random individuals alone without being accompanied by any other activity like processions does not lead to disturbance of order. Therefore, it is not considered as Sedition.

It had been a great controversy with Sedition laws from ages. Major issues with Sedition laws can be seen during British period where people were charged under sedition laws and imprisoned on criticising their policies.

However, these laws are significant too, in following ways:

Freedom of speech and expression that is provided to citizens by the Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution, is not an absolute right and can be restricted. These sedition laws act as a reasonable restriction on this right.
It helps in maintaining the stability of the government.
It keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements.
It helps in maintaining a balance between rights and restrictions.

Constitutional validity of Section 124A of IPC:

The Sedition law faced disapproval by people because it restricts the freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right of citizen of India. It had been questioned several times about its’ existence in a democratic country.

In the case of Kedarnath Singh vs. state of Bihar and Balwant Singh Anr vs. state of Punjab, various explanations have been given by the Supreme Court regarding the implication of Section 124A.

But, it often raises a question that whether it imposes fair restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression or not? Thus, the limitations must not go beyond its’ limits.

Recent Developments in Sedition Laws:

In February 2021, the Supreme Court protected a political leader and six senior journalists from arrest, for allegedly tweeting and sharing unverified news, in multiple sedition FIRs registered against them.

In June 2021, the SC while protecting two Telugu (language) news channels from coercive action by the Andhra Pradesh government emphasized on defining the limits of sedition.

In July 2021, a petition was filed in the SC, that sought a relook into the Sedition Law,

The Court ruled that a law that criminalizes speech based on vague and unconstitutional definitions of terms like ‘disaffection towards Government’ is not a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

Such a law creates a chilling effect on speech, that means people will self-censor or refrain from expressing their opinions out of fear of being punished by the government.[7]
India being a democratic country, provides its’ citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Different proposals had been made by Law Commission to reform sedition laws.

Different proposals for Reforms:

The 39th Law Commission Report in 1968, suggested to repeal this section, but this idea was rejected.
The 42^nd Law Commission Report in 1971, suggested to include the Constitution, the legislature, the judiciary along with the government of India under the ambit of sedition.
Again, in August 2019, it was suggested to repeal the Section 124A.
Later on, the Law Commission of India suggested to criminalise only those acts which are committed with an intent to disrupt public order and to overthrow the government.

Conclusion:

India as a democratic country provides rights and imposes reasonable restrictions on them. The penalisation of offences against the state is an important step towards maintaining the public order and stabilizing the governments’ rule. The people of India have right to criticise the policies of government. However, the liberty given should not be misused by them causing harm to other people as well as the government. Thus, we can conclude that putting the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of people is necessary for national development.

References: