CASE NAME	Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 ALL 101
CITATION	1959 CrilJ 1
COURT	Allahabad High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice M.C Desai
PETITIONER	Ram Nandan
RESPONDENTS	State of Uttar Pradesh
DECIDED ON	Decided on 16th May, 1958

INTRODUCTION

Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh was the first case in 1958 to establish the validity of Sec. 124A of IPC. Section 124-A of the IPC addresses sedition. On the other hand, the law of sedition is barely mentioned in this part. Although it discusses the legal offenses, it does not provide a clear definition of the word “sedition.” Stephen defined sedition as “conduct which has, either as its object or as its natural consequence, the unlawful display of dissatisfaction with the Government or with the existing order of society” in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 21st Edition, volume IV, pages 141–142. Seditious behavior might be expressed verbally, physically, or in writing. 

“Nothing is clearer than the law on this head – namely, that whoever by language, either written or spoken, incites or encourages others to use physical force or violence in some public matter connected with the State, is guilty of publishing a seditious libel,” the court stated in Rex v. Adler when defining the law of sedition. In its ordinary, natural meaning, the word “sedition” refers to a disturbance, an uprising, a public clamor, or an uproar; it indicates violence or lawlessness in one way or another.

Any act that incites hatred, contempt, or discontent toward the government and has the effect of undermining it would fall under the purview of the penal code. This is because it imports the idea of a predisposition toward public disturbance through the actual use of violence or incitement to violence. The section has taken care to clarify, nonetheless, that using strong language in a legal manner to voice disapproval of government actions in order to improve or reform them would not fall under the ambit of this section. Therefore, this clause shall not penalize remarks, no matter how strongly expressed, that convey disapproval of government policies without inciting the desire to incite public disruption through violent acts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant spoke on May 29, 1954, to a group of approximately 200 people, most of whom were villagers. His main points were that in order for mothers and sisters to support themselves, they had to sell their honor. Workers had no choice except to beg. Because of the lack of food, thousands of laborers and farmers were going hungry. To ensure that cultivators would not be satisfied, school fees and train rates were raised twice and four times, respectively. Thousands of Sitas were kidnapped during the Congress administration, and women were becoming prostitutes in order to pay for clothing and food. Deaths and births were subject to taxes. Blood from laborers and cultivators was being sucked through foreign businessmen. The workers in Uttar Pradesh have now grouped together. They will no longer plead for sympathy; instead, they will grab sticks and encircle the ministry, threatening to topple it if it does not comply with their demands. 

Every young person needs to learn how to use weapons like swords, rifles, pistols, batons, and spirit bottles if it was felt that farmers and laborers should run the nation. This is because the current government would not give up without a struggle. Without the usage of batons, governments have not fallen. Laborers and cultivators ought to organize into associations and build an army. The appellant disputed the validity of Section 124A and acknowledged having given the speech but disputed other portions of it.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether Section 124A of IPC is constitutionally valid?
• Whether the Appellant is liable for the offence of sedition under IOC?
• Whether the appellant’s speech falls under Section 153(A)’s jurisdiction and if Article 13 renders Section 153(A) invalid?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

• Argument on behalf of the appellant

• The appellant pleaded that Sec. 124A of IPC has become void under Article 13 of the Constitution.
• Not only is there no need for exposure, but even having an intimate chat with someone who is not even somewhat inclined to disrupt public order can get you in trouble. Even though none of the following can have raised the possibility of a public disturbance: the wife, the minor, the paralyzed person, the life convict, the alien, or the government servant—speaking to any of these people—is punishable.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

• According to Article 19(2), the phrases “in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions etc.,” regulate future laws rather than “existing law,” therefore the provisions of Article 19(1) do not influence the functioning of existing laws. When Article 19(2) was first passed, it stated that the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) could not “affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to or prevent the State from making any law relating to,…. or any matter….. which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.” Both the future law and the current law are required to address specific issues in order for Article 19(1) to have no bearing on how they operate (a). 
• In the sake of maintaining public order, Section 124-A, an existing legislation as defined by Sub-article (2), places reasonable limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is undeniable that exercising the right to freedom of speech and expression is restricted by Section 124-A, which does this by imposing a penalty or requiring the utterance or writing of specific phrases.

JUDGMENT

I. P. C. Section 124-A does not consider whether the accusations made against the government are true or false. Such negative emotions may be inadvertently triggered by a fair and accurate presentation of the facts rather than being the product of someone’s malicious intent. Sometimes, the purest, most unadulterated truth has the power to arouse the greatest emotions in us. It makes sense to make it illegal to toss venomed darts laced with the poison of deception and lies. The court determined that the implementation of the Constitution renders the provisions of Section 124-A, I. P. C. null and void for the reasons mentioned. As a result, the applicant has not broken any laws, and his imprisonment is unlawful. We grant the application and release him. The opposing party will reimburse him for his petition-related expenses. 

CONCLUSION

The court, in this case, holds Sec. 124 IPC as constitutionally invalid. However, it seems to be a rather harsh judgment, and after this case, many judgments have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upholding the validity of Sec. 124 A and overruling the Ram Nandan case. “The government of India” and “the nation of India” are synonymous in the section on sedition. Strong-worded writings that are yet patriotic in spirit are consequently branded as anti-national. This area suppresses criticism of the government, regardless of the veracity of the claims. Corrupt and autocratic regimes frequently employ sedition as a means of reaffirming and defending their hold on power. 

Words that are ambiguous, like “disaffection,” “hatred,” and “contempt,” make it simpler for the government to control sedition. Charge sheets are filed against an individual based on such imprecise language, and it takes years for the trial’s outcome to be known. Up until that point, the accused is held without much hope of being released on bond. Even the life sentence that follows a conviction for sedition is a harsher penalty than usual. This serves as an ideal mechanism of discouragement and prevention of dissent against the government.

One colonial statute that upheld the idea that the “King is Supreme” is sedition. In a modern world where human liberties are paramount, it has no place. For the right to dissent to be exercised, sedition should be outlawed. Since constructive disagreement can advance the country, it shouldn’t be punished. Sedition, however, is but one tool in a toolbox. The abuse of the UAPA, NSA, preventative detention legislation, etc., would continue to restrict the ability to dissent even after the sedition statute was repealed. It is imperative that the country cultivate a climate of discourse and tolerance for dissenting viewpoints. India wouldn’t be able to raise its legitimate concerns until then.