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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > IPC Sec 124A: Whoever, by words, either spok...

Join the Discussion on the App

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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?

a)
The speech should be against the government policy of the day.
b)
The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.
c)
The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.
d)
None of the above.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 15

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

IPC Sec 124A: Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by sign...

The US SC had held that the speech should be capable of causing immediate incitement of violence in the society. The SC upheld the same standard when testing speech vis a vis Sedition law. Both option (a) and option (d) are not stated in the passage.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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 challenge d) 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. Azhar is a kashmiri student living in Gujarat. Rajesh and Manto always bully him by calling him out as a terrorist sympathizer. One day out of frustration and anger he prints a Pakistani flag and puts it out on the house of Rajesh and Manto. Jyoti sees a Pakistani flag outside their house and informs the police. Can Rajesh and Manto be tried for Sedition. Decide.

View answer

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 challenge d) 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, Fategarh 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. The SC in the case of Kedar Nath v UOI read down the section to the discerned principle of?

View answer

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 challenge d) 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, Fategarh 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. The author is calling for removal of a section which the SC has upheld to be constitutional. Can the author be tried for Sedition for advocating views against the law of the land? Decide.

View answer

The demand for speedy retributive justice in the recent heinous crime done against a veterinarian has brought into light the question of extra-constitutional killings. The public sentiments, political demand of public lynching of rapists inter-alia have raised the debate whether a democratic country should follow the constitutional norms and adhere to the due process of law or shall it adopt the measures of retributive justice to bring instant and speedy justice to the victim.Retributive justice is a system of criminal justice based on thepunishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation where as in REFORMATIVE THEORY the object of punishment should be the reform of the criminal, through the method of individualization. It is based on the humanistic principle that even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being.From protests on the ground, to the commentary on social media, to MPs in Parliament, the demand for the instant killing of the accused from all corners created the public opinion for theabandonment of the rule of lawthat appears to have led to the incident.Justice in any civilised society is not just about retribution, but also about deterrence, and in less serious crimes,rehabilitationof the offenders.There is a procedure prescribed by the law for criminal investigation which is embedded in constitutional principles.Article21of the Constitution (which is fundamental and non-derogabl e) states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.Also in theSalwa Judum case in 2011a core constitutional precept was set out that in modern constitutionalism no wielder of power can be allowed to claim the right to perpetrate state’s violence against anyone. This is also the touchstone of the constitutionally prescribed rule of law(Article 14).Hence,it is the responsibility of the police, being the officers of government, to follow the Constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Lifeof every individual whether an innocent one or a criminal.According toDr. B.R. Ambedkar,the pathways of justice are not linear nor without obstacles. But we have, as a people, chosen the route of democracy and the Constitution, so we really have no option but to school ourselves in constitutional morality that with time must replace public moralityQ.As per author the extrajudicial killing of those 4 convicts was a form of

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed summoned his secretary, K. Balachandran, at around 11:15 p.m. on 25 June 1975. Ten minutes later, Balachandran met the pyjama-clad president in the private sitting room of his official residence at Rashtrapati Bhavan. The president handed his secretary a one-page letter from Indira Gandhi marked 'Top Secret'. Referring to the prime minister's discussion with the president earlier that day, the letter said she was in receipt of information that internal disturbances posed an imminent threat to India's internal security. It requested a proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) if the president was satisfied on this score. She would have preferred to have first consulted the cabinet, but there was no time to lose. Therefore, she was invoking a departure from the Transaction of Business Rules in exercise of her powers under Rule 12 thereof. The president asked for his aide's opinion on the letter, which did not have the proposed proclamation attached. Balachandran said that such a proclamation was constitutionally impermissible on more than one ground. At this, the president said that he wanted to consult the Indian Constitution. Balachandran retreated to his office to locate a copy. Meanwhile, the deputy secretary in the president's secretariat showed up. The two officials launched into a discussion about the constitutionality of the prime minister's proposal before they returned to President Ahmed with a copy of the Constitution. Balachandran explained that the president's personal satisfaction that internal disturbances posed a threat to internal security was constitutionally irrelevant. What the Constitution required was the advice of the council of ministers. Balachandran withdrew when the president said he wanted to speak to the prime minister. When he re-entered the room 10 minutes later, President Ahmed informed him that R. K. Dhawan had come over with a draft Emergency proclamation, which he had signed. Then the president swallowed a tranquilizer and went to bed.This late-night concern for constitutional propriety is revealing. What we see unfolding in the hunt for a copy of the Constitution, the leafing through of its pages to make sure that the draft proclamation met the letter of the law, is the meticulous process of the paradoxical suspension of the law by law. The substance of the discussion concerns the legality of the procedures to follow in issuing the Emergency proclamation. The political will behind the act goes unmentioned. This is because Article 352 (1) of the Constitution itself had left the judgement of the necessity for the Emergency proclamation outside the law. The doctrine of necessity regards the judgement of crisis conditions as something that the law itself cannot handle; it is a lacuna in the juridical order that the executive is obligated to remedy.Q. What reason for declaring Emergency does Indira Gandhi provide in her letter to President Ahmed marked 'Top Secret'?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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. What test did the SC adopt from the case of Brandenburg v Ohio in relation to protection of speech?a)The speech should be against the government policy of the day.b)The speech should lead to immediate incitement of violence in society.c)The speech should lead to disagreement on issues against fellow citizens.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam