Offence against state MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Offence against state - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is 'Five persons'

Key Points

• Definition of Unlawful Assembly under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • As per Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, an assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if its common object falls under any of the conditions mentioned in the section.
  • The unlawful assembly is formed with an intention to:
    • Resist the execution of any law or legal process.
    • Commit an offense involving criminal force.
    • Overawe any public servant by use of force.
    • Forcibly deprive any person of property or a right.
    • Compel someone to do something against their legal right by use of force.
  • If less than five persons are involved, the assembly does not fall under the definition of an "unlawful assembly" under Section 141.

Additional Information

• Two Persons:
  • Two persons do not constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141.
  • For a crime involving fewer people, charges like criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC) or rioting may apply.
• Four Persons:
  • Even though four people may commit an illegal act, they do not meet the minimum requirement of five persons for unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC.
• Seven Persons:
  • Seven persons can form an unlawful assembly, but the minimum requirement is five; hence, "seven persons" is not the correct specific answer.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

•  Under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
• “Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The correct answer  is option '2'.

Key Points

• Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law (Section 76).
  • This section provides immunity to a person who does an act under the compulsion of law or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.
  • It is based on the principle that an act done under the command of law should not be punished.
• Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent (Section 92).
  • This section protects acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without his consent, under certain circumstances.
  • Such acts must be done in good faith and without any criminal intent.
• Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof (Section 132).
  • This section deals with the punishment for abetment of mutiny if mutiny is actually committed in consequence thereof.
  • The person abetting the mutiny is punished as if he himself had committed the mutiny.
• Public nuisance (Section 268).
  • This section defines public nuisance and outlines the legal consequences of causing a public nuisance.
  • Public nuisance refers to any act or omission which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people in general.

Therefore the correct pairing is:

i - d: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law - Section 76

ii - a: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent - Section 92

iii - c: Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof - Section 132

iv - b: Public nuisance - Section 268

The correct answer is Sedition

Key PointsSection 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Sedition.The IPC Section 124A says, “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.

Punishment for the Sedition Offence

• It is a non-bailable offence.
• Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.
• The person found guilty of this offence is not eligible for any government job.

Additional Information

• The law on sedition keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements that can hamper the public order and incite violence and induce enmity.
• It helps in the stability of the elected government which could otherwise be attempted to be thrown out using illegal and violent means.
• It is an alignment with contempt of court. Elected Government is an important part of the executive. Hence, contempt of the government can be checked.

Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)
The constitutional validity of Section 124A was put to a test in this case.
A member of a Forward Bloc had given a speech which was charged as sedition.

• The Supreme Court held: “Speech or writing to which “subverting the government by violent means” is implicit—including the notion of “revolution”—is seditious.”
• A failed attempt to incite too is counted as sedition.
• It was seditious to create public disorder.

The correct option is Enmity.

Key Points

• Section 124A of Indian Penal Code: Sedition 
  • "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.
    • Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government 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".

Additional Information

• Case: S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)
  • The Supreme Court of India had stayed the operation of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860.
• However, the 22nd Law Commission recommended retaining the provision with certain amendments.
• The Commission recommended adding a procedural safeguard to Section 124A, requiring a preliminary inquiry by a police officer of Inspector rank before registering an FIR for sedition.

The correct answer is option 4.Key Points

• Chapter 6 in Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with offences against the State.
• Section 121 of I.P.C. 1860 deals with waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India.
• It says whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 399 of I.P.C. 1860 deals with making preparation to commit dacoity.
• Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

The correct answer is 148

Key PointsSection 148.Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The correct answer is 'Five persons'

Key Points

• Definition of Unlawful Assembly under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • As per Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, an assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if its common object falls under any of the conditions mentioned in the section.
  • The unlawful assembly is formed with an intention to:
    • Resist the execution of any law or legal process.
    • Commit an offense involving criminal force.
    • Overawe any public servant by use of force.
    • Forcibly deprive any person of property or a right.
    • Compel someone to do something against their legal right by use of force.
  • If less than five persons are involved, the assembly does not fall under the definition of an "unlawful assembly" under Section 141.

Additional Information

• Two Persons:
  • Two persons do not constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141.
  • For a crime involving fewer people, charges like criminal conspiracy (Section 120A IPC) or rioting may apply.
• Four Persons:
  • Even though four people may commit an illegal act, they do not meet the minimum requirement of five persons for unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC.
• Seven Persons:
  • Seven persons can form an unlawful assembly, but the minimum requirement is five; hence, "seven persons" is not the correct specific answer.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

•  Under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
• “Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

 The correct answer is Option 3

Key Points

Sedition under Indian Law

• Defined in Section 124A of the IPC (1870).
• Criminalises attempts to excite disaffection against the government

Key Judicial Precedent: Kedarnath Singh (1962)

• Supreme Court upheld sedition law but limited its use to cases involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
• Aligned sedition with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and its reasonable restrictions.

Recent Developments and Cases

• February 2021: Supreme Court stayed arrests (e.g., Shashi Tharoor, journalists).
• May 2021: Bail granted to MP K. R. R. Raju.

June 2021:

• FIR against journalist Vinod Dua quashed; Kedarnath cited.
• Court stayed coercive action against TV5 News and ABN channels.

Court's Evolving View on Media & Sedition

• Judges (Chandrachud, Rao, Bhat) questioned how sedition should be interpreted in light of media freedom.
• Stressed the need for protecting critical speech against government.

Pending Constitutional Challenge

• Journalists Kishorechandra Wangkhem and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla challenged the validity of sedition law itself.
• Argue that changed social context makes the law unconstitutional.
• Matter admitted by bench of Justices Lalit, Banerjee, and Joseph (April 30, 2021).

Additional Information

• Option 1. Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana is Incorrect: This case deals with police misconduct and custodial violence, not sedition or freedom of speech.
• Option 2. Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab is Incorrect: This case relates to the validity of euthanasia and right to die, not sedition or free speech.
• Option 4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is Incorrect (but related): This case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for curbing online speech, but it did not directly interpret sedition law.

The correct answer  is option '2'.

Key Points

• Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law (Section 76).
  • This section provides immunity to a person who does an act under the compulsion of law or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.
  • It is based on the principle that an act done under the command of law should not be punished.
• Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent (Section 92).
  • This section protects acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without his consent, under certain circumstances.
  • Such acts must be done in good faith and without any criminal intent.
• Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof (Section 132).
  • This section deals with the punishment for abetment of mutiny if mutiny is actually committed in consequence thereof.
  • The person abetting the mutiny is punished as if he himself had committed the mutiny.
• Public nuisance (Section 268).
  • This section defines public nuisance and outlines the legal consequences of causing a public nuisance.
  • Public nuisance refers to any act or omission which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people in general.

Therefore the correct pairing is:

i - d: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law - Section 76

ii - a: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent - Section 92

iii - c: Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof - Section 132

iv - b: Public nuisance - Section 268

The correct answer is Sedition

Key PointsSection 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Sedition.The IPC Section 124A says, “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.

Punishment for the Sedition Offence

• It is a non-bailable offence.
• Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.
• The person found guilty of this offence is not eligible for any government job.

Additional Information

• The law on sedition keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements that can hamper the public order and incite violence and induce enmity.
• It helps in the stability of the elected government which could otherwise be attempted to be thrown out using illegal and violent means.
• It is an alignment with contempt of court. Elected Government is an important part of the executive. Hence, contempt of the government can be checked.

Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)
The constitutional validity of Section 124A was put to a test in this case.
A member of a Forward Bloc had given a speech which was charged as sedition.

• The Supreme Court held: “Speech or writing to which “subverting the government by violent means” is implicit—including the notion of “revolution”—is seditious.”
• A failed attempt to incite too is counted as sedition.
• It was seditious to create public disorder.

The correct option is Enmity.

Key Points

• Section 124A of Indian Penal Code: Sedition 
  • "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.
    • Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government 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".

Additional Information

• Case: S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022)
  • The Supreme Court of India had stayed the operation of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860.
• However, the 22nd Law Commission recommended retaining the provision with certain amendments.
• The Commission recommended adding a procedural safeguard to Section 124A, requiring a preliminary inquiry by a police officer of Inspector rank before registering an FIR for sedition.

The correct answer is option 2. Key Points

• Section 124A of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with sedition.
• 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 says the expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
• Explanation 2 says 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 says 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.