Historical Context: The Legacy of Lokmanya Tilak
On August 1, 1920, two pivotal events unfolded: the passing of Lokmanya Tilak, a towering figure in India’s independence movement, and the launch of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement, marking a significant moment in the nation’s struggle for freedom. It is crucial to remember the trials and imprisonments Tilak endured, which played a significant role in India’s eventual independence.
First Sedition Trial, 1897
Tilak, editor and proprietor of the Marathi weekly Kesari, published reports on the Shivaji festival and a poem titled “Shivaji’s utterances” in June 1897. Shortly thereafter, the Plague Commissioner of Pune, W.C. Rand, was assassinated, leading to Tilak being charged with sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly inciting disaffection. His trial took place in the Bombay High Court, where a nine-member jury, including six Englishmen and three Indians, reached a 6:3 split verdict, with the Indians supporting Tilak. Justice Strachey accepted the majority view, sentencing Tilak to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment. The case, Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1897) 22 Bom 112, saw Justice Strachey interpret “disaffection” as merely the absence of affection, omitting the necessity of inciting violence, a view shared by Petherman J. in Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose, ILR (1897) 19 Cal 35.
The judgment overlooked the explanations under Section 124A, as neither article seemed to justify a sedition charge. Moreover, no connection was established between the writings and Rand’s assassination. Tilak was represented by Dinshaw Davar and, on appeal to the Privy Council, by H.H. Asquith, who would later become Prime Minister. Asquith argued that the judgment contradicted Section 124A’s language and lacked evidence linking the articles to sedition. The Crown, represented by Cohen, did not contest the merits, only cautioning against interference unless natural justice was breached. The Privy Council, led by Lord Halsbury, declined to grant leave, missing an opportunity to clarify Section 124A’s scope.
Second Sedition Trial, 1908
In April 1908, after Khudiram Bose’s failed assassination attempt on Magistrate Kingsford led to the death of two Englishwomen, Tilak published articles criticizing British oppression while condemning the violence. He warned that continued repression could provoke further violence and advocated for increased Indian political rights. Once again, Tilak faced a sedition charge in the Bombay High Court. Ironically, Justice Dinshaw Davar, who had previously defended Tilak, presided over the trial. Despite the articles not meeting Section 124A’s criteria, Justice Davar upheld the majority English jurors’ opinion, sentencing Tilak to six years of transportation to Mandalay, Burma, a decision reported in Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1908 (10) BLR 848.
Davar harshly criticized Tilak’s writings, suggesting they were filled with sedition and sentenced him to transportation, though acknowledging his potential life sentence. Tilak’s response, asserting his innocence and suggesting Providence might benefit his cause through his suffering, is immortalized at the Mumbai High Court entrance.
Contemporary Reflections on Sedition Law
The conditions at Mandalay Jail took a toll on Tilak’s health, but he managed to author a seminal commentary on the Bhagavad Gita during his imprisonment. Post-1914, he faced another sedition trial for his speeches on Home Rule, which the Bombay High Court found non-seditious.
Despite India’s independence, the sedition law persists. The Supreme Court upheld its validity, focusing on Section 124A’s explanations, though the section was recently suspended. Alarmingly, a more restrictive version exists under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, includes provisions against “disaffection.” Such definitions threaten press freedom, proving counterproductive, as Tilak’s trials remind us.
About the Author: Arvind Datar is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, offering legal insights through his columns.
