On his release after having served the sentence of transportation, Tilak was again prosecuted for sedition arising out of three lectures which he gave from a political platform.  He was ordered to execute a bond of Rs.20,000, to be of good behaviour.  The main theme of the lectures was the obtaining of swarajya through constitutional means.   His views were that British Administrators may be wise and educated; but as they were not selected by Indians, they could not know how Indians could be pleased.  Referring to the age of majority in human life, Tilak advocated that there should be  something similar in the life of nations; and after a certain period, Home-rule should be given when the nation becomes a major, that is, politically mature.  He was of the view that the civil service was highly-too highly-paid for a poor country like India.  The Viceroy who governed only a fraction of the British Empire was paid four times the salary of the British Prime Minister, who governed the whole empire. He asked: "Is this the price for giving up the cold climate of their own country ?", and himself gave the answer that this high cost was being incurred, because it was at the expense of others.

Explaining Swarajya, Tilak said that he did not mean that the King Emperor's rule should be removed.  "We want to remove the priests of the deity.  These priests are not wanted.  We say, appoint our priests from amongst us".  He advocated the same arrangement as was obtaining in the other colonies.  Indians could be good administrators.  " What about Akbar or Aurangzeb, Malik Ambar, Nana Phadnavis, and the civil servants in the native States ?"  he asked.  He also said that there were competent Indian magistrates and judges.  He pleaded, "We must persist and bring about amendments in the laws with the help and acquiescence of all".
 

The defence contended that since the speaker professed loyalty to the King Emperor, there was no disaffection in the speeches.  The lower court had held that to a charge of exciting disaffection towards "the government established by law", a profession of loyalty to the King Emperor and British Parliament was no answer.  The defence had further contended that the speeches did not offend section124A of the Indian Penal Code, because the attack was not on the government but against the civil service.  But Government established by law acts through a human agency, which in times of peace is the civil service.  By attacking the civil service en bloc the speaker excites disaffection against the government, if the effect is to infuse hatred or contempt of the established government, whose accredited agent the civil service is.

The High Court was of the view that, read as a whole, the speeches did not offend the law, though certain passages taken individually, could be taken exception to.  Since the general effect was not to cause disaffection, the order of the magistrate, directing Tilak to execute a bond of Rs.20,000, was unjustified and was set aside.