Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has examined the scope of sedition law in the context of social media posts criticising war and hostilities between India and Pakistan. The case raised important questions on whether online calls for peace and criticism of military operations could attract criminal liability under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The matter stemmed from an FIR registered at Dehra police station in Kangra district. The police alleged that , through a Facebook post and interaction with a Pakistani national, the person stated that “Operation Sindoor was wrong” and shared content critical of India-Pakistan hostilities. He was booked under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with sedition. During the course of investigation, the police filed a chargesheet before the trial court.
The prosecution contended that the social media posts were capable of promoting disaffection and undermining the sovereignty and integrity of the country. It was further alleged that the petitioner had raised the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad” on social media and had posted content relating to prohibited arms.
The defence argued that the posts, read as a whole, merely criticised war and advocated peace and communal harmony. It was submitted that there was no call for violence, no incitement to public disorder, and no recovery of any prohibited weapon or material from the petitioner.
A bench headed by Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the social media content attributed to the petitioner and observed that, prima facie, it reflected conversations criticising the hostilities between India and Pakistan and advocating that people of all religions should live together. The Court underlined that expressing a desire to end war and return to peace could not, by itself, amount to sedition.
On the allegation regarding prohibited arms, the Court noted that no illegal or prohibited weapon was recovered from the petitioner, holding that merely posting images or references on social media would not constitute sedition. With respect to the alleged slogan “Khalistan Zindabad,” the bench recorded that no such slogan was found in the data extracted from the petitioner’s mobile phone. Even otherwise, the Court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence to note that mere sloganeering, without incitement or overt acts, does not amount to a criminal offence. The Court further found no material at this stage to suggest that the impugned posts had incited violence, public disorder, or disaffection among the public.
Taking note of the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, and the fact that the investigation had already culminated in filing of the chargesheet, the High Court held that continued custody would serve no useful purpose. Emphasising that bail provisions should not be used as a means of pre-trial punishment, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
