Question Description
IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice IPC Sec 124A: 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, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.The insidiously developing use of technology by the government to create a surveillance security regime to monitor and track communication in India has a dangerous relationship with the retention of statutory offences criminalising political speech. In that, their object is the same – of imposing fundamental restrictions to constitutional freedoms.The explosion of instances in the recent past has gained “a special degree of notoriety” with the othering of human rights activists, university teachers and students and journalists as ‘anti-nationals’. They have been charged with and arrested for the offence of sedition for simply speaking against or criticising governmental action.This has lead to the creation of a state-sanctioned chilling effect on free speech and has sharply re-introduced serious concerns about the political use of the law in clamping down on an individual’s human rights – foremost among them of the right to freedom of speech and expression, encompassing the right to rebel and protest against the government and the policy of the state. The same right(s), which in its broadest formulation remain unquestionably vital for sustaining a resilient and vibrant democratic political process.In this context, despite its apparent initial disposition to broadly interpreting constitutional protections to free speech, the SC in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (where the constitutionality of sedition was challenged) on the first part, did re-state the test of ‘incitement to violence’.However, at the same time – and more importantly – the court also ignored a direct precedent that was laid down in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia, wherein it had formulated a strict test of proximity between speech and consequence to instead harshly reaffirm the speech restrictive standard of mere ‘intention or tendency’ to public disorder for prohibiting speech alleged to be ‘seditious’. The decisions of the SC in Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, progress towards establishing a similar test of ‘imminent incitement to lawless action’ for deciding protectable speech, as evolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brandenburg vs Ohio.Q. Ketan uploaded a TikTok video in which an army officer is beating two women for not listening to him. Under the video, the caption reads, “#state sponsored violence. Godi is a political supporter of the current government, he is enraged by seeing the video. He filed an FIR against Ketan under 124A of IPC. Relying on SC rulings, Decide.a)No case of sedition as Ketan is using a smartphone to express.b)Prima facie case for sedition, Ketan is an anti national by defaming the armed forces of our country.c)Prima facie case for sedition, Godi getting enraged shows the anti-national nature of Ketan’s speech.d)No case of sedition as Ketan is not invoking or causing any violence against the state.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.