UNIT 4

Offences against the State and Public Tranquillity

Sedition
Definition and Concept
Sedition is an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that involves acts inciting disaffection, hatred, or
contempt against the government. It is aimed at preserving the authority and integrity of the state by
penalizing actions that threaten public order and the stability of the government.

Relevant Section in IPC

 Section 124A IPC: Sedition.

Section 124A IPC: Sedition

Definition: "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."

Key Elements
1. Acts Covered:
o Words (spoken or written)
o Signs
o Visible representations
o Any other means
2. Intention: The intention to bring hatred, contempt, or excite disaffection against the government.
3. Target: The Government established by law in India.

Explanation
 The term "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
 Comments expressing disapproval of the measures of the government, without inciting hatred,
contempt, or disaffection, are not considered sedition.
 Comments expressing disapproval of the administrative or other actions of the government without
inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection are also not sedition.

Illustrations
1. Speeches and Writings: Making speeches or publishing articles that incite hatred against the
government.
2. Symbols and Representations: Using signs or symbols to provoke disaffection towards the
government.
3. Public Demonstrations: Organizing or participating in demonstrations aimed at inciting hatred or
contempt against the government.

Case Laws
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity
of Section 124A but clarified that only acts involving incitement to violence or creating public
disorder would fall under sedition.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court acquitted individuals who had
shouted slogans against the government, ruling that casual slogans not intended to incite violence or
public disorder do not constitute sedition.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Although this case primarily dealt with Section 66A of
the IT Act, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of distinguishing between advocacy and
incitement, emphasizing that sedition involves incitement to violence.
Legal Interpretations and Commentary
Constitutional Validity
 The constitutionality of Section 124A has been challenged multiple times. The Supreme Court in
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar upheld its validity but limited its application to acts involving
incitement to violence or creating public disorder.
Freedom of Speech
 Section 124A often raises concerns about its impact on the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, Article 19(2)
permits reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order, security, and integrity of
the state.
Intention and Effect
 Mere criticism of the government or its policies without incitement to violence does not constitute
sedition. The intention behind the act and its potential effect on public order are critical factors in
determining sedition.
Role of Judiciary
 The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting and applying Section 124A. Courts have emphasized
the need for a cautious approach, ensuring that sedition charges are not misused to stifle legitimate
dissent.
Punishments
 Life Imprisonment: The maximum punishment is life imprisonment, which may also include a fine.
 Imprisonment up to Three Years: Alternatively, the punishment may be imprisonment up to three
years, with or without a fine.
 Fine: The offense may also be punishable with a fine.
Conclusion
Sedition under Section 124A IPC is a serious offense aimed at protecting the authority and stability of the
government. While ensuring national security and public order, it is crucial to balance these concerns with
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Judicial interpretations have played a significant
role in defining the scope of sedition, emphasizing the need to distinguish between legitimate dissent and
acts that incite violence or public disorder.

Unlawful Assembly
Definition and Concept
An unlawful assembly is defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a gathering of five or more persons
with a common object to commit an offense or carry out an illegal act. The law aims to prevent assemblies
that pose a threat to public peace and order.

Relevant Sections in IPC

 Section 141 IPC: Unlawful assembly.
 Section 142 IPC: Being a member of an unlawful assembly.
 Section 143 IPC: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
 Section 144 IPC: Joining unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon.
 Section 145 IPC: Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to
disperse.
 Section 146 IPC: Rioting.
 Section 147 IPC: Punishment for rioting.
 Section 148 IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.

Section 141 IPC: Unlawful Assembly

Definition: An assembly of five or more persons is designated as an "unlawful assembly" if the common
object of the persons composing that assembly is:
1. To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power
of such public servant; or
2. To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offense; or
 4. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of
any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed
right; or
5. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Key Elements
1. Assembly of Five or More Persons: The gathering must consist of at least five individuals.
2. Common Object: The group must share a common unlawful objective.
3. Unlawful Purpose: The purpose must align with one of the five categories outlined in the section.

Section 142 IPC: Being a Member of an Unlawful Assembly

Definition: "Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally
joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly."
Key Elements
1. Awareness: Knowledge of the unlawful nature of the assembly.
2. Intentional Participation: Voluntary joining or remaining part of the assembly.

Section 143 IPC: Punishment for Being a Member of an Unlawful Assembly

Punishment: "Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

Section 144 IPC: Joining Unlawful Assembly Armed with a Deadly Weapon
Definition: "Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of
offense, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Key Elements
1. Armed with Deadly Weapon: Possessing a weapon capable of causing death.
2. Member of Unlawful Assembly: Participating in the assembly with such a weapon.

Section 145 IPC: Joining or Continuing in Unlawful Assembly, Knowing It Has Been
Commanded to Disperse
Definition: "Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has
been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Key Elements
1. Command to Disperse: Lawful order to disband the assembly.
2. Knowledge and Continuation: Knowing the order and still remaining part of the assembly.

Section 146 IPC: Rioting

Definition: "Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offense
of rioting."
Key Elements
1. Use of Force or Violence: Actual physical force or violence.
2. Prosecution of Common Object: Done to achieve the group's unlawful objective.

Section 147 IPC: Punishment for Rioting

Punishment: "Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 148 IPC: Rioting, Armed with a Deadly Weapon
Definition: "Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used
as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Key Elements
1. Guilty of Rioting: Participation in an unlawful assembly using force or violence.
2. Armed with Deadly Weapon: Possessing a weapon capable of causing death during the riot.
Illustrations
1. Political Protest: A group of people gather to protest a government policy. If the protest turns
violent and the group uses force to attack government property or officials, it becomes an unlawful
assembly.
2. Land Dispute: Five or more individuals gather to forcibly take possession of land, resorting to
violence if opposed. This constitutes an unlawful assembly.
3. Eviction Resistance: Residents form a group to resist a lawful eviction order using force against law
enforcement. This assembly is unlawful.
Case Laws
1. Ramachandran Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977): The Supreme Court held that an
assembly becomes unlawful if it has a common object that fits any of the descriptions under Section
141 IPC.
2. Mahendra Singh v. State of Bihar (2002): The court emphasized the significance of the common
object and intent behind the gathering in determining its lawfulness.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa (1996): The court clarified that mere presence in an
assembly is not enough; there must be active participation and common intent.
Legal Interpretations and Commentary
Common Object vs. Common Intention
 Common Object: Defined under Section 141 IPC, does not require pre-concert or prior meeting of
minds.
 Common Intention: Defined under Section 34 IPC, involves a pre-arranged plan and acting in
furtherance of the common intention.
Role of Judiciary
 The judiciary interprets the nature of the assembly, the common object, and the extent of
participation. Courts assess the evidence to determine whether an assembly qualifies as unlawful and
if the actions of its members warrant punishment under the IPC.
Punishments
 Simple Imprisonment: Ranges from six months to two years, depending on the specific section.
 Fine: Imposed as an additional or alternative punishment.
 Rigorous Imprisonment: Up to three years for rioting with a deadly weapon.
Conclusion
Unlawful assembly under the IPC addresses gatherings that threaten public peace and order by defining and
penalizing such assemblies and their members. The law emphasizes the importance of common object and
intent, with the judiciary playing a crucial role in interpreting and applying these provisions to ensure justice
and maintain public tranquility.

Affray
Definition and Concept
Affray is a legal term used to describe a public order offense involving a fight or a violent confrontation
between two or more individuals in a public place that causes bystanders to fear for their safety. It is aimed
at preserving public peace and tranquility by penalizing violent behavior that disturbs the peace.

Relevant Section in IPC

 Section 159 IPC: Affray.

Section 159 IPC: Affray

Definition: "When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said
to commit an affray."
Key Elements
1. Two or More Persons: Involves a confrontation between at least two individuals.
 2. Fighting: Physical altercation or violent confrontation.
3. Public Place: Any place accessible to the public or where a disturbance can be witnessed by the
public.
4. Disturbance of Public Peace: The altercation must cause a disturbance or disruption of public
peace, leading bystanders to fear for their safety.
Explanation
 Affray focuses on the public nature of the disturbance rather than the severity of the fight itself.
 The offense does not require proof of specific injuries or damage but emphasizes the potential impact
on public order and tranquility.
 The aim is to prevent violent confrontations in public places, which can escalate and endanger
bystanders.
Illustrations
1. Street Fight: Two individuals engage in a physical altercation on a busy street, causing bystanders to
become alarmed and fearful for their safety.
2. Bar Brawl: A fight breaks out between patrons at a crowded bar, leading to chaos and disturbance
among other customers.
3. Public Park Confrontation: Individuals engage in a violent confrontation in a public park, causing
panic among nearby visitors.
Case Laws
1. Queen-Empress v. Dadu (1889): The court held that affray occurs when two or more persons
engage in a public fight that disturbs the public peace, irrespective of whether it results in serious
injuries.
2. Jatindra Nath v. Emperor (1923): The court emphasized the importance of the public nature of the
altercation and the fear it instills in bystanders in determining affray.

Legal Interpretations and Commentary

Public Peace and Order
 Affray is aimed at safeguarding public peace and order by discouraging violent behavior in public
spaces.
 The offense focuses on the potential impact of the confrontation on bystanders and the general
public.
Distinction from Other Offenses
 Affray differs from offenses like assault and battery, which primarily focus on individual acts of
violence against specific victims.
 It emphasizes the collective disturbance caused by the altercation in a public setting.
Role of Law Enforcement
 Law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in preventing and addressing incidents of affray by
intervening promptly to restore public order and safety.
 Swift action by authorities can help prevent the escalation of violence and ensure the peaceful
resolution of conflicts.
Punishments
 Simple Imprisonment: Generally, affray is punishable with imprisonment for a term that may
extend up to one month or with a fine that may extend up to ₹250, or with both.
Conclusion
Affray is a public order offense aimed at preventing disturbances of public peace and tranquility caused by
fights or violent confrontations in public places. By penalizing such behavior, the law seeks to maintain a
safe and peaceful environment for the general public.
Riot
Definition and Concept
Riot is a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that involves unlawful assembly and the use of
force or violence by a group of people, leading to public disorder, destruction of property, and endangerment
of lives. It is aimed at maintaining public order and tranquility by penalizing acts of violence and disruption
that threaten the safety and security of society.

Relevant Sections in IPC

 Section 146 IPC: Rioting.
 Section 147 IPC: Punishment for rioting.
 Section 148 IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.

Section 146 IPC: Rioting

Definition: "Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offense
of rioting."
Key Elements
1. Use of Force or Violence: Involves actual physical force or violence.
2. Unlawful Assembly: The force or violence is used by an assembly deemed unlawful under Section
141 IPC.
3. Common Object: The force or violence is used in furtherance of the common object of the
assembly.

Section 147 IPC: Punishment for Rioting

Punishment: "Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Key Elements
1. Guilty of Rioting: Participation in an unlawful assembly using force or violence.
2. Punishment: The offense is punishable with imprisonment, fine, or both.

Section 148 IPC: Rioting, Armed with a Deadly Weapon

Definition: "Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used
as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Key Elements
1. Guilty of Rioting: Involvement in a riotous assembly.
2. Armed with Deadly Weapon: Possession of a weapon capable of causing death or serious injury
during the riot.
Explanation
 Rioting involves the use of force or violence by members of an unlawful assembly to achieve their
common object, resulting in public disorder and endangerment of lives and property.
 The offense focuses on the collective action of the assembly rather than individual acts of violence.
Illustrations
1. Street Riot: A group of individuals gathers on the streets, pelting stones at vehicles, damaging
property, and attacking bystanders, leading to chaos and public panic.
2. Communal Violence: Members of two communities engage in a violent clash, setting fire to houses,
looting shops, and causing widespread destruction in the area.
3. Labor Protest Turned Violent: Workers protesting against labor conditions resort to violence,
vandalizing factories, and clashing with law enforcement, resulting in a riot situation.
Case Laws
1. Queen-Empress v. Dadu (1889): The court held that rioting occurs when force or violence is used
by an unlawful assembly in furtherance of its common object, regardless of whether it results in
serious injuries or fatalities.
 2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court emphasized that mere presence in a
riotous assembly is not sufficient for conviction; there must be active participation in the violence.

Legal Interpretations and Commentary

Public Safety and Order
 Rioting is a serious offense aimed at protecting public safety and order by penalizing acts of violence
and disruption that threaten social harmony and security.
 The law seeks to deter individuals from engaging in collective violence and disorderly conduct.
Collective Responsibility
 Rioting emphasizes the collective responsibility of the assembly members for the violence and
disorder caused during the riot, regardless of individual roles or actions.
 Each member of the unlawful assembly is held accountable for the consequences of the group's
actions.
Law Enforcement Response
 Law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in preventing, controlling, and containing riots by
deploying appropriate measures to restore public order and safety.
 Swift and effective action by authorities can help mitigate the escalation of violence and minimize
damage to lives and property.
Punishments
 Imprisonment: Ranges from two to three years, depending on whether the accused was armed with
a deadly weapon during the riot.
 Fine: Imposed as an additional or alternative punishment.
Conclusion
Rioting is a grave offense under the IPC aimed at deterring collective violence and disorderly conduct that
threatens public safety and order. By penalizing such behavior, the law seeks to uphold social harmony and
security, ensuring a safe and peaceful environment for all members of society.