Correct option is A
·
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of sedition. The term "disaffection" in this context is broadly interpreted to include
disloyalty and
all feelings of enmity towards the government. This means that the term covers any negative sentiments, such as hatred, contempt, disloyalty, or hostility, which can incite people to rebel against the government or disrupt public order.
Information Booster:
·
Sedition under Section 124-A IPC: This section criminalizes any speech, writing, or action that attempts to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government established by law. The term "disaffection" encompasses a wide range of negative attitudes towards the government, ensuring that any attempt to undermine the authority of the government is punishable under this section.
Additional Knowledge:
1.
Historical Context: Section 124-A was introduced during the British colonial period to suppress dissent and rebellion against the colonial government. It has been retained in the IPC but has been subject to debate and criticism in independent India due to its potential impact on free speech.
2.
Legal Interpretation: Indian courts have interpreted "disaffection" to include not only active disloyalty but also any expression that may incite disobedience or resistance to lawful authority. However, the courts have also emphasized that criticism of government policies, without incitement to violence or public disorder, does not constitute sedition.
3.
Case Law: The interpretation of "disaffection" and the application of Section 124-A have been examined in several landmark cases, such as
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
4.
Criticism and Debate: Section 124-A has been criticized for being overly broad and for its potential to be misused to stifle dissent and free speech. Many legal experts and human rights organizations have called for its repeal or amendment to better protect individual freedoms.
