Q. Supreme Court in this case upheld the validity of sedition law and stated that the effect of subverting the Government by violent means or creating public disorder would come within the definition of sedition.
In which one of the following landmark cases, did Supreme Court held the above given statement?
Exp) Option a is the correct answer.
In a landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh Case, a Constitution Bench of the top court upheld the validity of section 124A (sedition) of the IPC, but also attempted to restrict the colonial-era law’s scope for misuse by trying to demarcate the difference between which acts amounted to sedition and which ones did not. Supreme Court said that any act that had the “effect of subverting the Government” by violent means or creating public disorder would come within the definition of sedition. It also upheld Section 505 (statements conducive to public mischief ) as constitutionally valid.
| Important Tips • In the Golaknath case (1967) Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles. • Supreme Court first propounded the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ or ‘basic features’ of the constitution in its landmark verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati Case. • In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights. But it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts |
