Section 108 CrPC: Security for Good Behaviour from Persons Disseminating Seditious Matters

In today’s complex legal landscape, maintaining public order and upholding the law are paramount. The Indian legal system includes various provisions aimed at preventing activities that threaten national security and public tranquility. One such provision is Section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals with securing good behavior from individuals disseminating seditious materials.

section 108 crpc

This article delves into the intricacies of Section 108 CrPC, its implications, procedures, and the critical role it plays in safeguarding national integrity.

Bare Act. Section 108 Cr.P.C.
Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters.

(1) When 1 [an Executive Magistrate] receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction any person who, within or without such jurisdiction,--
(i) either orally or in writing or in any other manner, intentionally disseminates or attempts to disseminate or abets the dissemination of,--
(a) any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or section 153B or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) any matter concerning a Judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
(ii) makes, produces, publishes or keeps for sale, imports, exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any other manner puts into circulation any obscene matter such as is referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) No proceedings shall be taken under this section against the editor, proprietor, printer or publisher of any publication registered under, and edited, printed and published in conformity with, the rules laid down in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867), with reference to any matter contained in such publication except by the order or under the authority of the State Government or some officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf.

1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1980, s. 2, for "a Judicial Magistrate of the first class" (w.e.f. 23-9-1980).

Understanding Section 108 CrPC

Section 108 of the CrPC empowers the Executive Magistrate to demand security for good behavior from individuals who engage in the dissemination of seditious material. Seditious material is any content that incites rebellion against the authority of the state. This provision is crucial for maintaining public order and ensuring that the dissemination of such material is curtailed effectively.

See also  Understanding Section 107 CrPC: Security for Keeping the Peace in Other Cases

Historical Context of Section 108 CrPC

The origins of Section 108 can be traced back to the colonial era when the British government enacted laws to suppress any activities that could potentially destabilize their rule in India. The essence of this provision remains relevant in contemporary times, given the increasing prevalence of hate speech, fake news, and other forms of seditious content that can incite public unrest.

Legal Framework and Interpretation

Section 108 CrPC falls under Chapter VIII of the Code, which deals with security for keeping the peace and for good behavior. It specifically targets individuals who, either orally or through written publications, provoke discontent against the government. The legal framework ensures that those indulging in such activities can be bound to maintain good behavior by executing a bond with or without sureties.

The Procedure Under Section 108 CrPC

The procedure to invoke Section 108 CrPC involves several steps:

  1. Initiation by the Executive Magistrate: The process begins with the Executive Magistrate receiving credible information about an individual’s involvement in disseminating seditious material.
  2. Show Cause Notice: The Magistrate issues a show cause notice to the individual, requiring them to explain why they should not be asked to furnish security for good behavior.
  3. Inquiry: An inquiry is conducted to ascertain the truth of the allegations. This involves examining evidence and witnesses.
  4. Execution of Bond: If the Magistrate is convinced of the individual’s involvement, they are asked to execute a bond to ensure good behavior for a specified period.

Implications of Section 108 CrPC

The implementation of Section 108 CrPC carries significant implications:

  • Preventive Measure: It acts as a deterrent against the spread of seditious material, thus preventing potential unrest.
  • Legal Accountability: Individuals disseminating seditious content are held legally accountable for their actions.
  • Protection of National Security: By curbing the spread of seditious material, this provision plays a vital role in protecting national security.
See also  Understanding Section 160 CRPC: Police Officer's Power to Require Attendance of Witnesses

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its importance, Section 108 CrPC is not without challenges and criticisms. Some argue that it can be misused to suppress free speech and target political dissent. There are concerns about the broad interpretation of what constitutes seditious material, potentially leading to arbitrary actions by authorities.

Balancing Security and Freedom of Expression

One of the critical debates surrounding Section 108 CrPC is the balance between national security and freedom of expression. While it is essential to prevent activities that threaten public order, it is equally important to protect individual rights to free speech and expression. Ensuring that this provision is applied judiciously and not misused is crucial for maintaining this balance.

Case Studies: Application of Section 108 CrPC

Examining case studies where Section 108 CrPC has been invoked provides insights into its practical application. For instance, cases involving the publication of inflammatory pamphlets or speeches that incite violence showcase the necessity of such legal provisions. However, there are also instances where the provision has been contested for allegedly targeting dissenting voices.

Reforms and Recommendations

To address the challenges associated with Section 108 CrPC, several reforms and recommendations can be considered:

  • Clear Definitions: Providing clear definitions of what constitutes seditious material can help prevent misuse.
  • Judicial Oversight: Ensuring judicial oversight in the application of this provision can safeguard against arbitrary actions.
  • Awareness and Training: Training law enforcement and judicial officers on the nuances of this provision can promote fair application.


Section 108 CrPC serves as a vital legal tool for maintaining public order and preventing the dissemination of seditious material. While its importance in safeguarding national security cannot be understated, it is equally crucial to ensure that it is applied judiciously, balancing security concerns with the fundamental rights of free speech and expression. By addressing the challenges and implementing recommended reforms, this provision can effectively contribute to the stability and security of the nation.

See also  Section 114 CrPC: Copy of Order to Accompany Summons or Warrant

Frequently Asked Questions

The Executive Magistrate has the authority to invoke Section 108 CrPC based on credible information about an individual’s involvement in disseminating seditious material.

Seditious material includes any content that incites discontent or rebellion against the authority of the state, potentially leading to public unrest.

Balancing national security and freedom of expression involves applying the provision judiciously, with clear definitions and judicial oversight to prevent misuse and protect individual rights.

Yes, there is potential for misuse, particularly if the provision is broadly interpreted or applied arbitrarily. Ensuring judicial oversight and clear guidelines can mitigate this risk.

Recommendations include providing clear definitions of seditious material, ensuring judicial oversight, and training law enforcement and judicial officers on the nuances of this provision.