libra, justice, law

Indian Sedition Laws: The need for Emancipation from Colonial Overlord’s Laws


The use of sedition laws in recent years has reignited debate about their undemocratic nature and applicability in today’s constitutional democracy. Regrettably, these standards have defied colonial authority. Numerous Indian courts’ application of sedition statutes reveals how archaic and irrelevant they have become considering contemporary culture. Every person has the fundamental right to freedom of expression and speech in a democracy like India. The scope of such laws is essential, even though a law of sedition is acceptable provided such rights are subject to fair restrictions. Sedition laws are highly objectionable and obnoxious in a nation where the rule of law is important.

This paper discusses the need for the Sedition Laws to be abolished in modern India. Authorities have for far too long used the sedition law to harass, intimidate, and persecute human rights defenders, activists, journalists, students, filmmakers, singers, actors, and writers who peacefully exercise their right to free expression[1]. This paper also emphasizes some reasons why the law should not be completely abolished and should continue to exist, albeit in a much narrower form.


Sedition laws, right to expression, Section 124A, Democracy, disaffection


 Independent India retained many of their predecessor’s laws, including the contentious law of sedition, which has been judicially evolved over time. Sedition, in its most basic form, is the defamation of the state and government with certain peculiar characteristics. The British used this law to imprison Indian nationalists such as Mohandas Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Gandhi referred to the law as the “prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen” when he appeared in court in 1922[2]. The Supreme Court suspended criminal law when the federal government opted to review it, for the first time in independent India. The Supreme Court has annulled Section  124A of the IPC, which has defined and punished sedition for 152 years. The Union of India concurs with the initial opinion expressed by this court that the requirements of Section 124 A of the IPC are out of step with the current social environment and were designed for a time when this country was under the colonial regime, according to Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, who presided over a three-judge bench. The Supreme Court further said that until the issue has been thoroughly reviewed by the Apex Court, the Union government and the states shall stop filing FIRs in accordance with the clause, and all prior 124A cases must be suspended. The Court also ruled that people who have already been arrested and jailed for breaching Section 124A IPC may submit a bail application to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, it has been decided that if a new case is filed, the proper parties are free to approach the court for the proper remedy, and the court is required to consider the requested relief considering the court’s ruling.[3]

Section 124A of Indian Penal Code defines Sedition as – Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government estab­lished by law in India, shall be punished with im­prisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with impris­onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1. “—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.” (“Sedition and the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression”) Explanation 2. —Comments expressing disapprobation of the meas­ures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3. —Comments expressing disapprobation of the admin­istrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section[4].

Sedition is a crime in India, as it is stated above, only punishes those who, through their actions, seek to incite scorn, hatred, or hostility toward the government. Acts of disapproval against the provision are excluded by explanation three, government activities that fall under the offense’s purview. Thus, even strong criticism that does not arouse a sense of discontent does not constitute sedition. However, this was not the case at first; instead, it took time for this architecture to emerge. It is possible to follow this evolution considering the numerous judicial rulings.

Since its initial conception, the law has been used to silence voices of protest, dissent, or criticism of the government. In the twenty-first century, with ever-increasing human rights concerns, there is an ongoing debate in India about the very existence of sedition law. The jurisprudence of sedition in India has been called into question in recent years, not only because it has been incorrectly applied as a tool for harassment by prosecuting authorities, but also because it has been declared obsolete and thus repealed in many countries, including the United Kingdom[5].

Research methodology

 This research paper analyses the need for abolition sedition laws created by colonial masters for their benefit in the current situation using a non-empirical approach to study. Primary and secondary sources were both used in this paper. Books, cases, and statutes are among the primary sources used in this research paper, while online articles, blogs, research articles, and legal websites are among the secondary sources. need for sedition laws created by colonial masters for their benefit in the current situation using a non-empirical approach to study. Primary and secondary sources were both used in this paper. Books, cases, and statutes are among the primary sources used in this research paper, while online articles, blogs, research articles, and legal websites are among the secondary sources.

Review Of Literature

Nivedita Saxena and Siddharth Shrivastava (2014) investigate the evolution of the law from colonial rule to the present day in their paper titled ‘An analysis of the modern offence of sedition.’[6] It examines the evolution and modification of interpretation through landmark cases. The authors then argue that modern governments have been abusing the legal system for personal gain. The law has been limiting the right to free speech, which is at the heart of any democratic nation. The research concludes that the law of sedition is now obsolete in the modern era.

Atul Dev (2016) in his article on the “History of the Infamous Section 124A,”[7] mentions several case laws ranging from the “Banghobasi case” to the “Kedarnath Judgement.” The evolution of the law as well as the modern definition of sedition have been thoroughly examined. The text also provides an update on the law’s current applicability in the Kanhaiya Kumar and Hardik Patel case. This article criticizes arbitrariness in the application of the law.

Ashwani Kumar (2016) elaborated on the concept of sedition in their thesis titled ‘Law of Sedition: A Comparative Study.’[8] The paper explains the history of the law of sedition and compares pre- and post-independence interpretations. In terms of sedition, distinguishing factors between English and Indian rule have been provided. The paper examined the constitutional validity of the law while contending with the freedom of speech and expression. A critical analysis of the law of sedition has also been conducted using various case laws. Finally, a comparative study of Sedition Law in India and other countries revealed different interpretations of the law depending on location.

In their paper titled ‘An Analysis of the Sedition Law in India,’ Jhalak Shah and Shantanu Pichauri (2017) question the validity of Section 124A of the IPC in a democratic country like India[9]. According to the authors, various courts’ decisions have revealed that the law of sedition is obsolete in modern times and requires changes. The paper sees the law’s continuation after independence as unjustified and believes it should be repealed. The study will now seek to determine the extent to which reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression can be applied.

Suvir Raghuvansh (2017) investigates the concept of sedition and its meaning in his essay ‘Sedition Law in India.’[10] The essay covers the essentials of the sedition offence and the punishment meted out to those found guilty. The essay goes on to examine the constitutionality of sedition law in India using various case laws, as well as its conflict with the right to free expression. Furthermore, it distinguishes sedition from treason.

Nitya Nand Pandet (2018) has authored a paper titled ‘Sedition vis-vis Right to Speech’[11] in which she discusses the ongoing debate over free speech provisions and their conflict with section 124A of the IPC. The paper discusses various incidents that sparked protests in response to the edition law, such as a speech given by JNU student Kanhaiya Kumar, protests held by Gujarat’s Hardik Patel, and so on. However, the paper concludes that, while citizens have the right to free speech, they also have the responsibility to respect and uphold the nation’s integrity and not to violate it.

Mahima Makhijaand and Asha Sundaram (2018) thoroughly evaluate the Shreya Singhal case as well as the notion of sedition that pertains to it in their work titled “The Sedition Laws in India with Special Reference to Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.”[12] However, the study also makes the case that Article 19 (1) (a), which is directly at odds with section 124A of the IPC, provides a constitutional protection of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Tanu Kapoor (2020) in her paper ‘Sedition Law: A comparative view in India with other countries’[13]studies the aim and origin of the sedition law in India. It describes Section 124 A of the IPC in violation with free speech in India and asserts that liberty should be given to the people to show their affection towards their country in their own way. The paper further assesses how the law is being misused and not applied genuinely by the government authorities and thereby curbing the rights of the citizens. Lastly, the paper compares the sedition law in India with other countries including United Kingdom, United States and Australia.

Yash Sinha & Kshitij Kasi Vishwanath (2020) in their study titled ‘An Analysis of Section 124A Through a Contemporary Lens’[14] asserts that the topic of Sedition in India today is one of sensitive nature. The paper aims to understand the provisions of sedition with respect to contemporary times and analyze Sedition through the lens of viability as well as constitutionality. Moreover, the paper, in view of achieving an international perspective, compares the Sedition Act of 1948 implemented in Malaysia to Section 124A in India. The paper has also traced the historical development of sedition to understand the rationale behind the law during its inception and in contemporary times as well.

Spandan Roy Basunia (2022) in article titled ” The desirability of Sedition Laws in Modern India”[15] discusses the historical background of sedition in India, as well as its relationship to the Fundamental Right to Free Expression. Additionally, the Proximity and Tendency tests are used to determine sedition. Finally, the paper makes four recommendations for how it can be reformed, and Section 124A of the IPC can be rewritten by replacing a few key words.

History Of Sedition

Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), current Section on Sedition, it was before Section 113 of the Macaulay Penal Code 1837-39. However, in 1860, when the IPC came into force, James Fitzjames Stephens, the founders of the Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, consider the results erroneous.[16] However, the British government considered it necessary to suppress the opposition raised by the natives. In 1870 the law of incitement to hatred was reintroduced, the law said if you do not love the government you will go to jail. The main reason behind adding the law was a fear of the Wahhabist movement gaining momentum in Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Northwest India. The first recorded case of this crime was with the Empress v. Jogindra Chandor Bose Known as the “Bangobasi case,”[17] the publisher’s Jogendra Chandra Bose accused of creating dissatisfaction with the colonial state by publishing his criticism of the colonial state the editor has since apologized for his actions that led to his downfall, accuse him. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak[18] was the prime case of sedition, for both arguments, I interpret Section 124A primarily as evoking “feelings. “Dissatisfaction with the government, including feelings such as hatred, enmity, loathing, enmity, contempt, malice in all its forms. expanded the range violation by stating that it was not the seriousness of the conduct or the intensity of the complaint; but the presence of the most important feelings and the mere attempt to evoke such feelings is sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. The dispute arose when the Indian Federal Court, the country’s supreme judicial body, opened. Establishment of the Supreme Court in the Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor Case[19]. The mere presence of violent language does not make speeches or publications inflammatory. Problematic behavior or statements must be disruptive or satisfying a man who is rational in his intentions or inclinations.” The Federal Court of Justice’s opinion was subsequently overturned by the Privy Council, If the speaker told the audience that the government wanted to ruin those who tried set them on the right track that the British came to India to make people addicted to alcohol, opium, and bang, executive and judiciary tend to favor whites He encouraged the audience to resolve not to live with men. I found out the speech was calculated to arouse dissatisfaction with the government and bring hatred and hatred. To distinguish the sedition law under British rule from the current definition, it can be stated that under British rule it was limited to “punishing exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection towards the government,” whereas Independent India added “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt towards the government of India as punishable under the offence.”

Sedition in Independent India & Concept of Freedom of Speech

Sedition remained a crime under Section 124A of the IPC even after India gained its independence in 1947. The State of Punjab v. Tara Singh[20], section 124-A of the IPC was declared invalid for violating the right to free speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a). The first amendment to the Constitution, which added the additional reasons of “public order” and “relations with friendly states” to the list of allowable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2), prevented the aftereffect of the aforementioned case. Furthermore, to prevent government exploitation, the word “reasonable” was added before “restrictions.” As a result, it brought section 124-A of the IPC in compliance with Art. 19 (1) (a)[21], which is justified by the expression “in the interest of public order” in Art. 19 (2)[22]. It has been claimed that the phrase “in the interest of public order” has a broader meaning and encompasses more than just behaviors that could disrupt the peace. This interpretation holds that Section 124-A of the IPC is outside the bounds of the Constitution.

The first case to take section 124 A of the IPC into consideration after independence was Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[23]. According to the Supreme Court, an act will only be covered by Article 19(2) of the constitution if it has the potential to endanger the “security of or tend to overthrow the State.” Article 19 (2) was amended to add “friendly relations with state” and “public order” for this reason. From this point on, only behaviors with a propensity to seriously disrupt public order and jeopardies national security were excluded from the protection of free speech and expression.

The Supreme Court’s historic decision in Kedar Nath Das v. State of Bihar[24] established the current interpretation of the law of sedition. According to the court’s interpretation, the incitement of violence is a necessary component of the sedition offence. The Federal Court’s interpretation in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar was followed by the court in this instance. The main question under discussion was whether Section 124A had become null and unconstitutional considering Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Sinha, C.J., who delivered the ruling, examined Section 124 A’s entire history. It is highly likely that Section 124 A’s provision violates the privilege protected by Article 19(1)(a). The main question was whether the segment might be spared by bringing it within the restrictions outlined in Article 19 (2). The court considered the conflicting implications Section124 A was given by the Privy Council and the Federal court. Sedition must be a crime, and the Federal Court’s position on the presumption of constitutionality was accepted. Section 124 A was deemed to be constitutional as a result, and it should only be used to punish acts that had the potential to cause public unrest or violence. One could argue that the limitations on free speech are necessary for maintaining public order. The crime of sedition became consequently established as an offence against law and against public tranquilly instead of a political crime affecting the very foundation of the country.

After this ruling, the law only intervenes to stop such activities in the interest of public order when words, written or spoken, etc. have the pernicious tendency or intention of causing public disorder or disturbance of law and order. Earlier, the section had placed the successful arousal of negative emotions and the unsuccessful attempt to arouse them on an equal footing.

 In the landmark case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar[25], the constitutional validity of the sedition law under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code was established. The court aided in distinguishing between “government established by law” and “the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration,” claiming that the former is a visible symbol of the state, and that the existence of the sedition law is now a necessary condition for the state’s stability. The court also struck a balance between the right to free expression and the applicability of the sedition charge. It stated that “the right to freedom of speech and expression is a sine qua non of a democratic form of government and hence must be protected.” But it is also essential to guard this right against becoming a license for vilification and condemnation of the government established by law in words that incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder. (“Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January 1962”) Fair criticism of government policies and actions, no matter how harshly worded, that did not have the potential to incite violence was not punishable under this offence. The Supreme Court established three principles to test free speech and expression in the well-known case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[26]: (a) debate, (b) advocacy, and (c) incitement. The right is available if a person’s act falls within the definition of the first two, which are the heart of Article 19 (1)(a). However, once the act falls under the purview of incitement, he is no longer protected under this right, and the case is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19. (2).

 Latest developments in sedition laws

The statute of sedition has been enforced by the courts numerous times since the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Kedar Nath[27]. In the past fifteen years, there have only been fourteen sedition-related cases, of which only two have been heard by the Supreme Court. In addition, there have only been three convictions, one of which was handed down by the Supreme Court.

 In P.J. Manuel vs. State of Kerala[28], the defendants posted flyers urging voters to skip the state’s general election for the Legislative Assembly on a board at the Kozhikode public library and research centre. No vote for the bloated bosses who have grown fat on abusing the people, regardless of political differences, read the poster. As a result, he was subject to criminal prosecution for the crime of sedition under section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. The court ruled that the definition of sedition must be defined in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, not by using the criteria used during colonial authority, and thus ordered the defendant’s acquittal. In Gurjatinder Pal Singh v. The State of Punjab[29], the accused petitioned the Punjab & Haryana High Court for an order to quash the FIR filed against him under Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code. At religious ceremony held in memory of the martyrs, the petitioner delivered a speech to the crowd promoting the establishment of Khalistan, a buffer state between Pakistan and India. It was also decided that explicit demands for secession and the establishment of a separate State would not be considered seditious acts. The FIR filed against the accused was thus dismissed. The defendant in the other case, Mohd. Yaqub, etc. v. State of West Bengal[30], admits to working as a spy for the Pakistani intelligence service. They would provide him with instructions on how to engage in anti-national activities. Thus, he was accused of sedition in accordance with Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court determined that the prosecution had failed to prove that the acts were seditious and that they had the impact of encouraging people to violence by noting the elements of sedition that were established in Kedar Nath V. State of Punjab[31]. As a result of the rigorous evidence requirements not being met, the defendants were ruled not guilty. In the other case, Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi[32], the defendant was given the assignment to carry out terrorist actions in India after receiving training from militant groups including Jamet-e-Islamic and Al-e-Hadees. He then abducted British and American tourists who were in India and demanded the release of 10 terrorists who were being held in prison in exchange for the release of the foreigners. But after one of the hostages attempted to escape, the authorities managed to apprehend him. Later, he was put on trial for several crimes, including sedition. The Supreme Court ruled it to be an act of sedition and stated that it was impossible to make a clear distinction between preaching disapproval of the government and acceptable political participation in a democratic setting. The court ruled that it was a sedition act. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab[33] saw the Supreme Court overturn convictions for ‘sedition’ and ‘promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.’, and clear those who had yelled ‘Khalistan zindabaad, Raj Karega Khalsa’ and ‘Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange, one of the defendants, Piyush Guha, gave an extrajudicial confession that public health attorney Binayak Sen had given him certain letters to deliver to Kolkata in the infamous case of Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh[34]. These letters contained Naxal literature, including data on police atrocities and human rights violations. To convict the accused of sedition, the High Court cited widespread violence by prohibiting Naxalite groups from attacking members of the armed forces. However, it did not clarify how the mere possession and supply of literature could be considered a seditious act. Furthermore, the High Court did not address the issue of incitement to violence, that was clearly absent in this case.

The Supreme Court recently effectively suspended Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. Former Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana presided over a three-judge bench that concluded that “the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this court that the rigors of Sec.124 A of the Indian Penal Code are not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime.”[35]

The Supreme Court further said that until the issue has been thoroughly reviewed by the Supreme court, the Union government and the states shall stop filing FIRs in accordance with the clause, and all prior 124A cases must be suspended. The Court also ruled that people who have already been arrested and jailed for breaching Section 124A IPC may submit a bail application to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, it has been decided that if a new case is filed, the proper parties are free to approach the court for the proper remedy, and the court is required to consider the requested relief considering the court’s ruling. Given the modern, technologically advanced world we live in, seditious behavior must not exist if we are to lay the democratic foundations of our nation. A democracy needs opportunity for criticism, disagreement, and opposing viewpoints to function efficiently.

Suggestions & Conclusion

India is not a country that has never debated whether or not the Sedition Law is appropriate. It has been there since before independence. The British colonial authorities had no better means of detaining the independence fighters than this. Sedition was removed from our Constitution during the time of our independence after a lengthy debate in our Constituent Assembly, but it was kept as a criminal offence under Section 124A of the IPC. However, after independence, it is claimed that successive state and federal governments continued to abuse this provision by using it to silence critical voices. Until the ruling in May 2022, the Supreme Court of India sustained the validity of the provision despite numerous challenges to it, sometimes with extremely narrow and other times with wide interpretations. A significant event in the history of our nation was the suspension and subsequent review of Section 124A of the IPC. We find ourselves in this predicament because of the changing circumstances in our society and the apparent abuse by the government.

The author believes that these arrests should only be made when there is no reasonable doubt that the crime was committed because it has been reported that in some circumstances, the police arrest the accused on suspicion of sedition. The author goes on to say that section 124A’s application should be limited to prevent unauthorized use by powerful authorities. To hold persons accountable for harm done to the public, the government has various laws in place, including the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act of 1984 and Section 505 of the IPC, which deals with public mischief. Given the existence of these provisions, Section 124-A is no longer necessary and should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, which involve the government not abusing its authority.

Since its origin, there have been irregularities in how the law of sedition has been applied in India, with its applicability being ambiguous and inconsistent in all situations. The public was oppressed as and when it suited their interests and undermined their power, therefore its applicability was initially kept vague and unknown. It was applied to achieve political objectives by putting an end to speeches that threatened the legitimacy of the state.

The author advises correctly defining the level of disruption of public order. There is no reason to enforce a draconian penalty like Sedition onto someone whose speech does not cause social discontent. The Ram Manohar Lohia case[36] provided a clear explanation of the distinction between law and order, public order, and state security. The Court noted the striking differences between the three of them. Imagine three circles closely spaced from one another. Public order, Law & Order, and state security are shown in that order, with Law & Order being represented by the largest circle. Therefore, while one act may compromise law and order, it may or may not also disturb public order. In accordance with obligation, limits on expression must be strictly construed in accordance with necessity and proportionality considerations to minimize speech restriction.




[1] India: Supreme Court’s temporary suspension of Sedition Law a Welcome Step Amnesty International, (last visited Nov 13, 2022)  

[2] Raghu Malhotra , Explained: What Tilak, Gandhi and Nehru said about IPC Section 124A, the law on sedition Google (2022), (last visited Nov 13, 2022).  

[3]Chief Justice of India NV Ramana leaves behind lasting legacy of judicial reforms, The Economic Times (2022), (last visited Nov 10, 2022).

[4] Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[5] Praveen Shekhar, How various countries have junked sedition law Google (2022), (last visited Nov 10, 2022).  

[6] ‘An analysis of the modern offence of sedition.’, (last visited 2022)

[7] Atul Dev, A history of the infamous Section 124A The Caravan (2016), (last visited Nov 11, 2022).

[8] Ashwani Kumar, Law of sedition a comparative study Shodhganga@INFLIBNET: Law of sedition a comparative study (1970), (last visited Nov 10, 2022).

[9] Jhalak shah & shantanu pichauri, An analysis of sedition law in India – researchgate (2017), (last visited Nov 12, 2022).

[10] Suvir Raghuvansh, sedition Law in India Sedition law in India Abstract, (last visited 2022).

[11] Nitya Nand Pandet, SEDITION LAW VIS-À-VIS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION BSK legal (2018),,intention%20of%20creating%20public%20disorder.%E2%80%9D (last visited 2022).

[12] ahima Makhijaand & Asha Sundaram, The Sedition Laws in India with Special Reference to Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.” International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation – International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation (2018), (last visited Nov 2022).

[13] Tanu Kapoor, Sedition law: A comparative view in India with other countries International Journal of Law (2020), (last visited Nov 2022).

[14] yash Sinha & Kasi Vishwanath, An analysis of the concept of sedition under the indian penal … – IJIRL ijirl (2020), (last visited Nov 13, 2022).

[15] Spandan Roy Basunia, The desirability of Sedition Laws in Modern India” Jus Corpus (2022), (last visited Nov 10, 2022).

[16] Raiot Collective, A brief history of sedition laws ” raiot RAIOT (2019), (last visited Nov 13, 2022).

[17] (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35

[18] Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak on 9 November, 1916  (1917) 19 BOMLR 211

[19] AIR 1939 Cal 703

[20] 1951 AIR 441, 1951 SCR 729

[21] Article 19(1) in the Constitution of India 1949 – Indian kanoon, , (last visited Nov 2022).

[22] Article 19(2) in the Constitution of India 1949 – indian kanoon, , (last visited Nov 2022).

[23] Article 19(2) in the Constitution of India 1949 – indian kanoon, , (last visited Nov 2022).

[24] 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769

[25] 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769

[26]AIR 2015 SC 1523

[27] Id 25

[28] Indian kanoon – search engine for Indian law, , (last visited Nov 2022).

[29] Crl. Misc. No. M-23655 of 2008.

[30] 1988 Cr. LJ 354 (Cal)

[31] Id 25

[32] Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461 : AIR 2003 SC 4427.

[33] 1976 AIR 230

[34] Dr Vinayak Binayak sen 2 pijush … vs state of chhattisgarh on 10 …, , (last visited Nov 2022).

[35] 2020 Live Law (SC) 470

[36] Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [1965] INSC 176 (7 September 1965), 1965 Latest Caselaw 176 SC