The boy who stood his ground: How Kedar Nath’s acts of defiance shaped sedition law

His daughter Chandrabhama, 80, says, “My father did not listen to my maternal uncle. Instead, he told him, ‘Why would I lie? I did it. And I did it for my country’.”

Released from jail months later, Kedar Nath was accorded a hero’s welcome for standing up to the British. The young boy was garlanded and taken around town on a horse cart.

(From left) Kedar Nath Prasad Singh’s grandson Manjeet Kumar Singh, eldest son Jitendra Prasad Singh and grandson Sumit Kumar Singh (the son of Kedar Nath’s younger son) in Barauni village of Bihar’s Begusarai district. (Express Photo by Himanshu Harsh)

Kedar Nath would show this determination once again in his 40s — after he was charged with sedition for a fiery speech against the then Congress government in Bihar’s Munger in 1953.

According to court records, Kedar Nath’s speech went thus, “Today the dogs of the CID are loitering round Barauni. Many official dogs are sitting even in this meeting. The people of India drove out the Britishers from this country and elected these Congress goondas to the gaddi and seated them on it. Today these Congress goondas are sitting on the gaddi due to the mistake of the people. When we drove out the Britishers, we shall strike and turn out these Congress goondas as well. These official dogs will also be liquidated along with these Congress goondas.”

A magistrate’s court in Monghyr (Munger) charged and convicted Nath of sedition under Section 124A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charge was upheld by the Patna High Court, which sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment of one year.

Kedar Nath then moved the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A, a colonial law that was enacted to curb the freedom movement. The provision criminalises speech that “attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government.”

Kedar Nath argued that the overbroad wording of the law violated his right to free speech.

Kedar Nath’s grandson Sumit with his daughters, Jigyasa and Aisha. (Express Photo by Himanshu Harsh)

On January 20, 1962, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the sedition provision, but restricted its application “to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”.

“It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc., which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order, that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed, the Section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order,” the court had said.

The SC ruling remains a precedent against misuse of sedition laws, cited as recently as in the 2016 case against Congress leader Kanhaiya Kumar, who is also from Begusarai.

Kedar Nath: The man, the case

At the village square in Barauni, a plaque with Kedar Nath’s name etched on it, along with that of other freedom fighters who went to jail, stands in the village square.

Talking of Kedar Nath’s early brush with politics, former village mukhiya Bhola Singh says, “In 1935, Kedar Nath met Yamuna Prasad Singh, popularly known as Bhagatji, a prominent freedom fighter from Bihar’s Katihar district, at the Bhaktiyog Pustakalay (a local library) and formally joined the Congress as a member. After Bhagatji’s death, Kedar Nath was drawn to socialist and revolutionary ideals and joined the Forward Bloc. After the party split, Kedar Nath and his peers, including Ramphal Sharma and Rameshwar Singh, joined the Forward Communist Party.” It was as a member of the Forward Communist Party that he made his “dogs of the CID” speech in 1953.

Kedar Nath’s eldest son Jitendra Prasad Singh, 89, recalls his father as someone who was “tall” – “over six feet” – with a “strong physique” and a “complete gentleman”.

The courtyard at Kedar Nath’s residence in Barauni village of Bihar’s Begusarai district. His old house was demolished by his sons, who have built their own houses in its place. (Express Photo by Himanshu Harsh)

His father, he says, remained steadfast to his ideals throughout his life. “He refused to take his freedom fighter’s pension. He would say, ‘I fought for the freedom of my country, not for money’. He also tore up a coal license that I had got issued in his name under a government quota, saying, ‘I didn’t fight for freedom to get you into the coal business’,” says Jitendra.

Though the Kedar Nath ruling is often cited as one that gave impetus to free speech and for reigning in police powers invoking sedition, legal scholars have critiqued the top court for “missing” an opportunity to strike down the colonial law.

“The Supreme Court’s judgment in (the) Kedar Nath Singh (case) is in equal parts a political judgment and a legal one, which is perhaps fitting, considering it dealt with that most political of crimes — sedition. The Court acknowledged that the breadth of Section 124A’s plain text unconstitutionally undermined the freedom of speech and expression. It refrained from striking down the provision, instead almost inserting words to keep it alive and within the pale,” says Abhinav Sekhri, a Delhi-based advocate who is involved in a fresh challenge against Section 124A.

In 2022, while hearing the challenge, the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the sedition law, holding that it was prima facie unconstitutional. However, the government had requested an opportunity to rethink the law before the court could strike it down.

In 2023, when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was introduced to repeal the IPC, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had announced in Parliament that the colonial sedition law had been repealed. However, the BNS retains the text of the law, with a mere name change from “rajdroh (treason against the empire)”to “deshdroh (treason against the nation)”.

Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar

“With the BNS and its renaming of the sedition offence, we see that the lines drawn by Kedar Nath have been seemingly erased, giving renewed importance to understanding the decision itself, but also the role played by the Supreme Court in navigating a minefield of contentious interests,” Sekhri adds.

In Kedar Nath’s case, his speech could have been protected by the interpretation of the 1962 ruling. However, the Court dismissed his appeal, noting in the last paragraph that his lawyers made no such effort. Though the case was sent to the High Court for fresh consideration, Kedar Nath did not live to see that happen.

In the winter of 1962, months after the Supreme Court verdict, Kedar Nath, then 49, was walking along the rail tracks in Barauni while on his way to his family’s field in nearby Muradpur. He often took that route to avoid the muddy village trails.

“It was raining heavily that day,” recalls his son Jitendra.

As he walked towards Muradpur, Kedar Nath spotted some girls on the tracks, collecting pieces of coal that had fallen off a passing steam locomotive. Spotting a Katihar-bound train approaching, Kedar Nath rushed to pull the girls to safety.

Jitendra says, “He saved the girls. But as he turned, a Samastipur-Danapur train, which was approaching from the other side on the double-track line, hit him. He died.”