“Mentor’s Comments”
- https://www.thehindu.com/
opinion/lead/the-law-of- sedition-is-unconstitutional/ article35027081.ece - In the intro, mention recent judgments on the use of section 124A in which the courts expressed concerns.
- In the body, mention the colonial background of the section, three explanations given in the sections and the inability of these explanations to define the ambit of the term sedition and reconciling it with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a). Next, mention the lack of protection to sedition under Article 19(2). Also mention Kedar Nath case and use of the term ‘tendency to cause to create public disorder leaves room for misuse.
- Conclude by mentioning the need for an urgent review of Kedar Nath judgement by a larger Bench.
Ref id 422329
Vishal
Very simplistic answer. You will have to bring out the more nuanced arguments. Introduction is fine, you can mention some recent cases.
Mention why sedition is in violation of article 19(1)(a). Mention the three explanations given in the sedition law and the inability of these explanations to define the ambit of the term sedition. Also mention that none of these explanations satisfy reasonable restrictions in article 19 (2). Take help of the article above.
After that mention about Kedar Nath judgement in which the SC asserted that sedition is applicable only when writing or speech can lead to violence or public disorder. This also gave the law protection under article 19 (2) which has public disorder as one of the reasonable restrictions. This saved section 124A from being struck down as unconstitutional.
In misuse by police, mention that it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by him.Then you can mention the examples.
In conclusion you can mention the need for an urgent review of Kedar Nath judgement by a larger Bench rather than suggesting an outright repeal.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Please review it sir
Payment I’d- pay_HHhwlNw9vfR4HH
Shubham
Decent attempt. You can mention some recent examples of misuse of sedition law in the introduction. You can also mention that it is a colonial era law.
In interplay part mention that the initial explanation -exciting or attempting to excite disaffection including disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government; bringing hatred or feeling of contempt towards the government etc is not a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) and hence penalising under these provisions is a breach of FR under 19(1)(a).
After that mention about Kedar Nath judgement in which the SC asserted that sedition is applicable only when writing or speech can lead to violence or public disorder. This also gave the law protection under article 19 (2) which has public disorder as one of the reasonable restrictions. This saved section 124A from being struck down as unconstitutional.
You have the content, just need to arrange it in a coherent manner to give a view of what actually happened.
Rest of the answer is fine. Conclusion is okay.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
pay_HH1EGxOD3EGEhl
Subhashree
Your knowledge is fine, content is also good but the answer doesn’t have an organic flow.
You have repeated same thing too many times. Mention HOW sedition should have been unconstitutional but it still survives due to judicial interpretation.
the initial explanation -exciting or attempting to excite disaffection including disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government; bringing hatred or feeling of contempt towards the government etc is not a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) and hence penalising under these provisions is a breach of FR under 19(1)(a).
After that mention about Kedar Nath judgement in which the SC asserted that sedition is applicable only when writing or speech can lead to violence or public disorder. This also gave the law protection under article 19 (2) which has public disorder as one of the reasonable restrictions. This saved section 124A from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Mention of cases are good. Address the last part too about misuse,
it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by state.Then you can mention some examples.
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Please review
Payment Id pay_HHWzC2O9xhkaqA
Utkarsha
Very good attempt. You have covered most points. Subheadings are good.
In inability to define the ambit part, add a point regarding fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and describe how disaffection or just hatred towards government is not a reasonable restriction. Rest of the explanation is fine.
In SC judgement section, also mention that Kedar Nath judgement upheld the constitutional validity of sedition as harm to public order is a reasonable restriction under article 19(2).
You can add examples of cases of recent misuse.
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing.
6.5/10
ref id #0000422539
Mradul
Very good attempt. You can add some examples of recent cases of misuse of the law. Also you can mention briefly why the law is still in statute books.
Examples of cases are good. Also mention that SC in Kedar Nath judgement upheld the constitutional validity of sedition as harm to public order is a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) by softening the ambit of the law. The earlier judgements held it unconstitutional since ambit of explanation given in original law was very broad and was unsatisfactory.
Remaining part is fine. Conclusion is well written.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Please review @Swatantra sir
Payment Idpay_HNcChZDeZv4nu2
Prashant
Decent attempt, your understanding is good.
Mention it clearly that in the original form the explanation given in the law was unsatisfactory and just disaffection or bringing hatred towards the government is not a reasonable restriction under article 19 (2), hence making the law unconstitutional but SC in Kedar Nath judgement upheld the constitutional validity of sedition as harm to public order is a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) by recommending use of sedition only when there is a threat of violence or harm to public order.
In misuse by police, mention that it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by state.Then you can mention some recent examples.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Order number #0000416426
please review sir
Rupesh
Introduction is fine, you can mention some recent examples where sedition has been invoked.
Explanation is also fine, first point under misuse is not framed well, actually Kedar Nath judgement held the law constitutionally valid since it interpreted sedition as harming public order and this is a reasonable restriction under article 19(2), the earlier explanation of disaffection and creating hatred for government was not a reasonable restriction under 19(2) and hence SC in earlier cases like Tara Singh vs State of Punjab had questioned the constitutionality of the law.
Rest of the answer is fine, in misuse you can write about low convictions inspite of increasing detention under the law, scope of police excesses etc
Conclusion is good.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
UPI REFERENCE NO.-114715258066
Murari
Very generic answer. Introduction is good. You have mentioned that law is against article 19(1)(a), but mention how, write about article 19, then trace how it was considered unconstitutional in earlier judgements like Tara Singh vs State of Punjab, but later in Kedar Nath SC softened the ambit of the law but held it constitutionally valid.
Exciting or attempting to excite disaffection including disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government; bringing hatred or feeling of contempt towards the government etc is not a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) and hence penalising under these provisions is a breach of FR under 19(1)(a).
In Kedar Nath judgement the SC asserted that sedition is applicable only when writing or speech can lead to violence or public disorder. This also gave the law protection under article 19 (2) which has public disorder as one of the reasonable restrictions. This saved section 124A from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Address the last part too about misuse,it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by state, low convictions inspite of high detentions etc
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Review
Ref no 0000420120
Rajlaxmi
Introduction is good, after that until point number 3 the answer is good. Then mention that SC in Kedar Nath judgement upheld the constitutional validity of sedition as harm to public order is a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) by softening the ambit of the law.
No need to mention about Stephen etc in such detail, you can give a passing reference about its application on Gandhi and Tilak in introduction only.
Next two sections are written well, examples are good too.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Payment I’d 115009045817
Santosh
Your content is good, you have understood the question well, just make the presentation of the answer better.
Put subheadings for different sections such as misuse by the police, way forward etc. Also you can use examples of certain recent cases where sedition has been invoked. You can use some data regarding low convictions in spite of high number of detentions.
Good attempt, read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
pay_HHogiMPYpQ87sC
Kartikey
Try to write with a deeper pen or zoom and click. The image is very light.
Answer is good, but before mentioning about Kedar Nath judgement, mention why it was considered unconstitutional in earlier judgements like Tara Singh vs state of Punjab etc- exciting or attempting to excite disaffection including disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government; bringing hatred or feeling of contempt towards the government etc is vague and not a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) and hence penalising under these provisions is a breach of FR under 19(1)(a).
You can use examples of certain recent events to show how it is misused. Low convictions in spite of high number of detentions can also be mentioned. Use subheadings fordifferent sections to make the presentation better.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Please review sir
Payment Id: pay_HHNZ7RGmO4BG6P
Sushmita
Nice attempt. Frame the introduction better, SC has directed governmnents to adhere to the Kedar Nath judgement while invoking sedition and not apply it frivolously.
Points mentioned in interplay are good. Mention Kedar Nath case in point number 5, also mention before that explanations provided in the law did not come under reasonable restrictions of article 19(2).
In misuse, you can use some recent examples; also some data regarding low convictions in spite of high number of detentions can be mentioned. Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
6.5/10
Payment Id: pay HFrdyJMOEZ9967. Please review, Sir.
Sumita
Nice attempt. Introduction is good, keep the historical part very brief- just a passing reference will do. After that until protection under article 19(2), the flow of answer is very good. In constitutionality, mention that in Kedar Nath although the ambit of the law was made narrow by considering sedition only when there was an attempt to create violence or public disorder, still it got constitutional sanction as public order is a reasonable restriction under 19(2).
Address the last part too about misuse,it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by state, low convictions inspite of high detentions etc. You can give recent examples if possible.
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Payment id-HJHAZEWKSzM3CX
Ankita
Introduction is good. You have mentioned that law is against article 19(1)(a), but mention how, write about article 19, then trace how it was considered unconstitutional in earlier judgements like Tara Singh vs State of Punjab, but later in Kedar Nath SC softened the ambit of the law but held it constitutionally valid.
Points mentioned are fine, you can cut short on historical examples; rather use examples from recent times.
Address the last part too about misuse,it is the policeman who judges whether a writing or speech can cause public disorder or not, hence making the law prone to misuse by state, low convictions inspite of high detentions etc.
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
Please review. Payment ID: HQ3P5UFSBXxM9V
Saheli
Good attempt. Your content and knowledge is also good. You can keep the history part concise, give a passing reference and move on.
Also you can arrange the answer better, first mention why sedition was considered to be unconstitutional, then move to Kedar Nath case and how SC although softened the ambit of the law still gave it constitutional sanction.
Then write about misuse. Points are good. You can use recent examples rather than historical examples.
Conclusion is fine.
Read some other answers. Keep writing.
6.5/10
Please review @Swatantra sir
Ref id 420326
Deepali
Nice attempt. Introduction is good. Points after that are also fine but you need to write in a bit of detail how it was considered unconstitutional earlier and later got constitutional sanction in Kedar Nath case.
Exciting or attempting to excite disaffection including disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government; bringing hatred or feeling of contempt towards the government etc is vague and not a reasonable restriction under article 19(2) and hence penalising under these provisions is a breach of FR under 19(1)(a).
In Kedar Nath judgement the SC asserted that sedition is applicable only when writing or speech can lead to violence or public disorder. This also gave the law protection under article 19 (2) which has public disorder as one of the reasonable restrictions. This saved section 124A from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Misuse part is good. You can mention some data about low convictions in spite of high detentions, give recent examples if possible.
Conclusion is good.
Read some other answers. Keep writing. 🙂
5.5/10
pay_HH4AoVE2qPd386 please review @Swatantra