CASE BRIEF: BALWANT SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB, (1995) 3 SCC 709

CASE NAME	Balwant Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 709
CITATION	AIR 1995 SC 1785, 1995 AIR SCW 2803, 1995 CRI APPR(SC) 173, (1995) 3 SCR 817 (SC)
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice  Dr. A.S. Anand and Justice Faizan Uddin
PETITIONER	Balwant Singh and others
RESPONDENTS	State of Punjab
DECIDED ON	Decided on 1st March, 1995

INTRODUCTION

In India, there have been numerous cases where the State has abused the sedition laws to suppress dissenting views or actions against journalists, students, activists, teachers, and other individuals. Data made available by the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) to verify the legitimacy of sedition cases filed between 2014 and 2016 provide support for this claim. The report's "offenses against the State" section included 179 arrests for sedition in total. But in more than 70% of the cases, the police did not submit charge sheets, and during this time, there were only two convictions.  In India, there have been numerous cases where the State has abused the sedition laws to suppress dissenting views or actions against journalists, students, activists, teachers, and other individuals. Data made available by the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) to verify the legitimacy of sedition cases filed between 2014 and 2016 provide support for this claim. The report's "offenses against the State" section included 179 arrests for sedition in total. But in more than 70% of the cases, the police did not submit charge sheets, and during this time, there were only two convictions. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

On October 31, 1984, at approximately 5:45 p.m., Balwant Singh, an assistant in the D.P.I. Punjab office in Chandigarh, and Bhupinder Singh, a senior clerk in the Punjab School Education Board in Chandigarh, were taken into custody from the area of Neelam Cinema in Chandigarh. Following the conclusion of the investigation, they were tried for offenses under sections 124-A and 153-A IPC. They were all given harsh prison sentences of one year and 500 rupee fines for each of the two charges. They were subject to three months of additional R.I. for each offense if the fine was not paid in full.  The main sentences were supposed to flow together in parallel. Both of them have contested their conviction and sentencing through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, as recorded by the learned Judge of the Special Court, Chandigarh on 2.3.1985. The prosecution's evidence against the appellants is that on October 31, 1984, the day Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister at the time, was assassinated; they emerged from their various offices after work and shouted slogans in a busy area in front of the Neelam Cinema. They are being prosecuted for sedition now. In their testimony, Som Nath PW2 and Labh Singh PW3 stated that they had left the police station at approximately 5 p.m. or 5.15 p.m. and that they had observed both of the appellants raising slogans as previously mentioned, while they were patrolling the area around Sector 17 Chandigarh's main market. While both witnesses acknowledged that individuals were generally going about their business when slogans were being raised and that people did not congregate upon hearing the shouts, they also claimed that some people left out of "fear." During the cross-examination, Som Nath PW2 acknowledged that he was unable to identify or even speculate as to whether any bystanders became scared upon hearing the chants and left the area.  The witnesses stated that the two appellants jointly raised the slogans. During the cross-examination, PW3 ASI Labh Singh acknowledged that the slogan "Khalistan Ziridabad" was raised approximately five or six times, while the slogan "Raj Karega Khaisa" was raised two or four times, and the third slogan was only raised once or twice. PW2 was unable to specify how many times each of the three slogans was raised by the appellants. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the conviction of the accused given by Special Court is valid and should be upheld?
• Whether the accused are guilty of sedition?
• Is it reasonable for the trial court to assume that the accused received a kirpan during his transfer from the police station to the district jail, given that the investigation, which was conducted using a personal search warrant and memo under Section 51 of the CrPC, did not reference the kirpan?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the appellant

• The prosecution has failed to establish a case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the skilled counsel, Mr. V.M. Tarkunde. The fact that the incident took place in a busy area was brought up multiple times during the trial, but the prosecution was unable to identify any impartial witnesses to provide favorable testimony. This was identified as their case of serious disability. 
• Then, it was argued that Som Nath and Labh Singh, the prosecution's two key witnesses, had made a vain attempt to conceal Balwant Singh's possession of the kirpan, a fact that DW1 Munshi of the District Jail subsequently corroborated. Subsequently, it was declared that the whole evidence against the appellants was fabricated and that the prosecution's witnesses had given false testimony in court. 
• A counter-argument was advanced, stating that even if the appellants had yelled the slogans as the prosecution claimed, there would not have been sufficient evidence to establish a case under sections 124-A and 153-A of the IPC because there was no men's rea or public unrest to encourage violence.

Argument from the respondent

• It was argued that the actions taken by the appellants qualified as crimes under Sections 124-A and 153-A of the IPC due to the conditions that existed at the time of Indira Gandhi's killing. The prosecution's inability to link any specific person to the evidence does not invalidate the trustworthy testimony provided by ASI Labh Singh and Constable Som Nath. It was also mentioned that no one was prepared to cooperate with a police case, even after Labh Singh made multiple attempts. 
• Additionally, the counsel suggested that no evidence of enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the appellants had been presented in order to unjustly accuse them of a crime.

JUDGMENT

It was decided that two random people casually displaying slogans without any additional overt actions, such as organizing a parade that did not cause any disturbance of public order and had no violent purpose, could not be considered to be committing a major sedition charge. The Sikh community and all other communities were able to go about their daily lives without any difficulty, and the police ought not to have given the appellants' trite slogans such weight. According to the Court, a plain reading of the section demonstrates that it can only be applied when the accused uses written or spoken words, visual signs or representations, or other means to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection toward the Indian government that is established by law. In summary, no offense under Section 124-A of the IPC was committed.  Regarding Section 153-A of the IPC offense, the Court believes that it can only be invoked in cases where written or spoken words have the potential to cause public disorder, disturb law and order, or affect public tranquility and that the law must intervene to stop such activity. In the present case, however, the facts clearly demonstrate that there was no disturbance of any kind, either public order, law and order, peace and tranquility, or any indication that it had occurred in the area where the appellants were apprehended while carrying out their activities. As a result, the appellants have not proven mens rea. Consequently, there was no violation of that specific clause.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

The trial court's previous ruling in this case, which had found the persons chanting provocative slogans on a busy road on the day of Indira Gandhi's assassination guilty of sedition, was overturned on the grounds that the slogans did not incite violence, which is a necessary prerequisite under section 124-A of the IPC. The case is very helpful in redefining the boundaries between what is offensive and what causes inconvenience. It also highlights the need for courts to interpret sections of legislation based on the facts of the case rather than the literal meaning in order to understand why they are still in place in Indian law—namely, to protect free speech and expression. There has been a history of cases regarding the law of sedition and its development till now. The law of sedition should be inferred in narrow terms, and mere spoken words should not constitute the offense of sedition. It should be interpreted by the Court very carefully, considering the grave nature of the offense. The offense of sedition is an offense against the government of India that can be inferred to be an offense against the citizens of India. Being convicted of this offense will leave a tarnished image even if the offense was not committed. Hence, it should be construed by the Courts very carefully.