Lisu case: SEDITION and Incitement to violence

[Retired]

......Therefore, advocating revolution or advocating even violent overthrow of State, does not amount to sedition, unless there is incitement to violence & more importantly, incitement is to imminent violence.


Sedition is about when a person's speech, behaviour, language, written words attracts the group of people or a mob acts rebellion against authority of state or create incitement to public disorder or violence.

In India, sedition is 124A of Indian penal code & when person charged under this IPC. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life.

Court have interpreted 124A of Indian penal code in many cases relate to 124A section:

Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar 1962: constitutional bench of supreme court made clear that allegedly seditious speech & expression may be punished only if speech is an incitement to violence or public disorder.
Subsequent cases have further clarified the meaning of this phrase.
In Indra Das vs State of Assam & Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam, Supreme Court stated that only speech that amounts to “incitement to imminent lawless action” can be criminalised.

 

[johnthebaptist]

Sawa

 

[Stuxnet]

Tafsiri yake hii hapa:-

---

Kwa hivyo, kuhimiza mapinduzi au hata kuhimiza kuangushwa kwa dola kwa nguvu hakufikii kiwango cha kosa la uchochezi (sedition), isipokuwa pale ambapo kuna uchochezi wa kutumia nguvu—na zaidi ya yote, uchochezi huo unalenga vitendo vya vurugu vinavyotarajiwa kutokea mara moja.

Uchochezi ni pale ambapo hotuba, tabia, lugha au maandishi ya mtu yanachochea kundi la watu au umati kuasi dhidi ya mamlaka ya dola au kusababisha machafuko ya umma au vurugu.

Nchini India, kosa la uchochezi linapatikana chini ya kifungu cha 124A cha Kanuni ya Adhabu ya India (Indian Penal Code - IPC). Mtu anaposhitakiwa chini ya kifungu hiki, adhabu yake ni kifungo cha maisha.

Mahakama zimefafanua kifungu cha 124A katika kesi mbalimbali:

Kedar Nath Singh dhidi ya Serikali ya Bihar (1962): Jopo la kikatiba la Mahakama ya Juu lilieleza wazi kuwa hotuba au maelezo yanayodaiwa kuwa ya uchochezi yanaweza kuadhibiwa tu pale yanapochochea vurugu au machafuko ya umma.

Katika kesi nyingine kama Indra Das vs Serikali ya Assam na Arup Bhuyan vs Serikali ya Assam, Mahakama ya Juu ilisisitiza kuwa ni hotuba tu inayochochea “kitendo haramu kinachotarajiwa kutokea mara moja” ndiyo inayoweza kuchukuliwa kuwa kosa la jinai.