Key Facts
- •The Sedition Act 1920 of Trinidad and Tobago, a pre-independence law, was challenged for its compatibility with the 1976 Constitution.
- •The case originated from statements made by Satnarayan Maharaj on his talk show, deemed divisive and inciteful by the Telecommunications Authority.
- •After Maharaj's death, his son Vijay Maharaj continued the appeal on behalf of the estate.
- •The High Court held the Sedition Act inconsistent with the Constitution, while the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.
- •The appeal to the Privy Council focused on whether the Act was 'existing law' under section 6, and whether it violated section 1 of the Constitution.
Legal Principles
Principle of Legality
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115
Legal Certainty
Various case law and academic works
Freedom of Expression in a Democratic Society
Thornhill v Alabama (1940) 310 US 88; NAACP v Button (1963) 371 US 415; Simms [2000] 2 AC 115
Separation of Powers
DPP of Jamaica v Mollison [2003] UKPC 6; Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195
Interpretation of Section 6 ('Existing Law')
Johnson v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKPC 53; Chandler v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2022] UKPC 19
Section 1 of the Constitution as Substantive, not merely Declaratory
Vallet v Ramgoolam 1973 MR 29; State of Mauritius v Khoyratty [2006] UKPC 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Sedition Act 1920 is considered 'existing law' under section 6 of the Constitution and is therefore protected from invalidation on the grounds of incompatibility with sections 4 and 5. The court found that section 1 of the Constitution, while substantive, does not override the protection afforded by section 6.