CASE NAME	Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1908 SCC OnLine Bom 48
CITATION	(1908)10 BOM LR 848
COURT	Bombay High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice  Davar
PETITIONERS	Emperor
RESPONDENT	Bal Gangadhar Tilak
DECIDED ON	decided on 22nd July, 1908

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was first enacted in 1861 and then updated by the present version in 1973; and the Indian Evidence Act, which was enacted in 1872, remains the cornerstones of criminal jurisdiction in India even today. It is evident that these laws were influenced by the British colonial government’s experiences quelling popular uprisings, handling the uprising of 1857, the atrocities that followed, and their desire to maintain their authority. The original Indian Penal Code did not have the sedition provision. It was first included in 1870 when Chapter VI of the Code, which addresses offenses against the state, included Section 124A under the heading “Exciting Disaffection.” 

One of the most well-known instances of the early application of the sedition legislation is the 1897 trial of nationalist, teacher, and activist Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He was accused of sedition for stirring up unrest with a piece he wrote for the Kesari. The Lokmanya received a twelve-month prison sentence. He has denied any anti-Muslim sentiment in his support of the Ganesh celebration or in spreading the Shivaji festival. He said that the people took pride in their ancestry and felt a feeling of belonging as a result of these festivities. After the bombings in Muzaffarpur in 1908, the British authorities charged Tilak with instigating violence and discontent against the colonial government. This case brought to light the burgeoning Indian independence movement and the tension between colonial repression and freedom of speech.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In June 1908, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was taken into custody on charges of sedition under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 153-A of the IPC for his articles that appeared in Kesari (a Marathi newspaper founded by Tilak) and “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”

ISSUES RAISED

Whether or not Tilak’s speeches’ impact qualified as seditious under Section 124 A of the IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the side of the petitioner

• The prosecution claimed during the trial that Tilak’s two articles were full of seditious remarks that claimed the government was autocratic, had an oppressive and tyrannical nature, sacrificed the interests of the natives to those of Englishmen, carried out its administration in an unscrupulous and iniquitous manner, and had become intolerable to the people of India. All of these claims, according to the prosecution, clearly fall under the definition of disaffection. 
• The prosecution further argued that Tilak implied in the second essay that India could get the same goal by using the same methods that other nations had used to gain advantages from bombings. The prosecution further argued that by claiming that the white class was acting against the interests of the native, the second piece aimed to incite racial tensions. As additional evidence, a Tilak-owned postcard with the titles of explosives-related books on it was displayed.

Argument from the side of the respondent

• Tilak accepted full responsibility for the articles, stating that they were written and published by him; however, he argued on the other two points, stating that it would be dangerous for the jury to find him guilty based only on the jurors’ opinions, which were formed by the articles, which were not the original Marathi articles but rather English translations of the original articles. He provided a very clear analogy to support his argument.
• He further contended that the impact of the articles on the minds of the jurors could never be equated with the impact those articles had on the minds of the original audience because the jury, which was primarily composed of Englishmen, had a limited understanding of Kesari’s audience, which was the Marathi-speaking community. 
• Additionally, he separated the crime of sedition into two categories: (1) brings hatred or (2) attempts to incite hatred, and (2) excites or (2) attempts to excite. He contended that Kesari’s audience, who spoke Marathi, was already aware of the positions he supported and that every word he wrote could have been found in Congress literature. Due to the lack of evidence supporting (1), he contended that his accusation should be dropped in favor of a mere attempt, which, citing specific precedents, he said was not punishable. 
• He went on to explain that those two pieces were written in response to those written by the Anglo-Indian community and that their goal was to encourage the movement by suggesting changes to the government during the period of unrest that should be covered by reasonable criticism.

JUDGMENT

The Court decided that it was not disloyal to portray the King’s officers in India as being driven solely by the lowest of motivations, even though it rejected Jinnah’s claim that they were not a part of the legally created government. Speeches must be read as a whole, with a fair construction used that does not favor the petitioner or the Crown and gives greater weight to the overall general impression than to any individual words or paragraphs. The Court went on to say that after reading the speeches, they believed that the main way to determine what information was intended was from the language used and whether or not reading them inspired feelings of disapproval or hatred for the administration. Reading speeches “in a fair, free, and liberal spirit” is advised. One should also avoid pausing at an offensive statement or strong term; instead, discussions of speeches should be handled “in the spirit of freedom” and not “with an eye of narrow criticism.” 

CONCLUSION

The freedom of speech and expression, which Tilak believed gave birth to a nation and nurtured it, was guaranteed to its citizens when India, the nation named after him, came into existence following his death. In India, legitimate limitations exist on freedom of speech and expression. One such limitation is the prohibition on sedition, which Jawaharlal Nehru described as “extremely objectionable and obnoxious” and which, for historical and pragmatic reasons, should not be included in any legislation that may be passed. Better yet, the sooner we get rid of it. 

Jawaharlal Nehru was a person to be afraid of. Sedition cases have increased by 165% in recent years, according to an NCRB analysis. The sedition law has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression as well as Indian democracy, as evidenced by the conviction of several journalists such as Kappan Siddique, the filing of sedition charges against a parent and the principal of a school in Bidar, Karnataka, the detention of Sharjeel Imam, etc. 

In these cases, courts have deviated from the standard. Bail is the rule; incarceration is an exception. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s 1962 ruling in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar did not adhere to the condition of inciting violence. Given that the statute of sedition is currently being reviewed, the government needs to realize that dissent is not harmful to democracy but rather the foundation upon which it grows.

At the end of the Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak case, Tilak was found guilty of sedition in accordance with Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. His writings in Kesari were deemed to have incited public unrest and fostered enmity against the government by the British colonial court. As a result, Tilak was sent to Mandalay, Burma (now Myanmar), and given a six-year prison sentence. This belief significantly influenced the Indian independence struggle. Tilak became a national icon of defiance and martyrdom for the cause of India’s freedom as a result of his trial and imprisonment, which stoked anti-British feelings. The trial also brought up significant issues regarding the restrictions placed on free expression during colonial administration, as sedition laws were employed as a means of stifling opposition and suppressing nationalist leaders.

Millions of Indians were moved by Tilak’s well-known remark that “Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it,” which fueled the country’s desire for independence. The case demonstrated the repressive application of sedition laws by the British administration and underscored Tilak’s contribution to galvanizing the Indian masses to struggle for their rights and freedom. In the end, Tilak’s imprisonment bolstered the independence movement’s resolve, and he became a key player in the fight for Swaraj.