Offences against State | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Offences against the state are considered crimes that disrupt public order and tranquility, specified under sections 121, 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 153, and 153B of the Indian Penal Code. These offenses are committed against the state and the government, endangering public peace and national integration.
• Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code primarily addresses actions such as waging war against the government, attempting to wage war, and aiding the waging of war. It involves using violence to achieve public goals.
• Waging war often involves unlawful assembly, where individuals join forces to disturb public peace for a common purpose. Intent and purpose are crucial in such cases, rather than the sheer force involved.

Understanding Waging of War as per IPC

Section 121 defines waging of war, emphasizing its literal meaning without necessarily implying creating war-like situations. It does not encompass overt acts like amassing men and ammunition. The section extends liability to foreigners in certain cases, as seen in incidents like the Mumbai terror attack. Attempting and abetting such wars are also punishable offenses under the IPC.

Key Elements of Waging of War:

• Waging of war
• Attempting to wage war
• Abetting the waging of war

For an offense to qualify under this section, it must be directed against the government of India. This offense is non-bailable, cognizable, and carries a punishment of life imprisonment.

Section 121A addresses conspiracies related to offenses punishable under section 121. It focuses on conspiring to commit crimes punishable under section 121 and conspiring to overawe the government of India using criminal force, with a penalty of life imprisonment.

Section 122 deals with preparations for waging war, making the collection of men, arms, and ammunition for waging war against the government punishable by imprisonment, not exceeding 10 years.

Concealment with Intent to Facilitate Design to Wage War

• Section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the concept of concealment with the intent to facilitate the design to wage war against the government.
• This section specifies that individuals who engage in acts or illegal omissions with the aim of waging war or with the knowledge or intention of waging war against the government and conceal the existence of a design to wage war are subject to punishment.
• The punishment for such actions can include imprisonment of either description, with a maximum term that may extend up to 10 years.

Sedition Overview

• Definition of Sedition: Sedition, as outlined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), involves any act where an individual, through spoken or written words or visible representation, endeavors to stir up hatred or disaffection against the government of India. It's crucial to note that even an attempt to commit such an act is considered a serious offense.
• Understanding "Disaffection": The term "disaffection," as used in the legal context, encompasses sentiments of disloyalty and hostility towards the government. Not every action against the government amounts to sedition; intent to incite hatred is a key factor.
• Exclusion of Unintentional Acts: Acts that do not aim to generate animosity towards the government do not fall under the purview of sedition. Intent plays a significant role in determining whether an action constitutes sedition or not.
• Historical Instances: Notable historical cases of sedition include those involving prominent figures like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. Both faced charges of sedition for their writings in publications such as "Young India."

Challenging the Legitimacy of Sedition Law in India

• Overview of Sedition Law: There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of the sedition law in India, particularly its impact on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
• Landmark Case - Kedar Nath v/s State of Bihar: In the pivotal case of Kedar Nath v/s State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the validity of the sedition law, emphasizing its role in safeguarding the state. However, the court clarified that prosecution for sedition is warranted only if the actions of an individual lead to incitement to violence or intent to cause public disorder.
• Freedom of Expression: The court highlighted that citizens possess the right to criticize the government and its policies through speech or writing, as long as such expressions do not instigate violence against the legally established government or aim to disrupt public order.

Conclusion

In conclusion, offenses against the state have a broad scope, often raising concerns about potential infringements on the fundamental rights of citizens. Laws with expansive reach can be prone to misuse, highlighting the importance of discerning the fine line between criticizing the government's actions and engaging in activities that incite hatred. Striking a balance between upholding these laws and preventing their misuse is crucial for their effective implementation.