Posters Calling SC Judgment "Denial Of Justice" Is Protected Dissent; Not Offences U/S 153A Or 295A IPC: Karnataka High Court
The Court held that the possibility of a few individuals developing hatred or ill will was insufficient; the applicable test was the general impact of the expression on a significant number of reasonable people.
The Karnataka High Court has held that posters describing a Supreme Court judgment as a “denial of justice” and calling upon people to “raise the voice for justice” expressed dissent and did not attract Sections 153A or 295A IPC. It consequently quashed the entire FIR registered against 13 persons.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.
A Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh observed: “Having considered the same, it appears that a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the judgment. The Apex Court in the recent judgment in Javed Ahmad Hajam’s case and also considering the principles laid down in the judgment particularly, in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo’s case, discussion was made with regard to Section 153A and also the ingredients of offences. Though the said slogans are against dissatisfaction of the judgment of the Apex Court, while invoking Section 153A, there must be ingredient of sedition against the State.”
Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba appeared for the petitioners, while High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M. appeared for the respondents.
Background
The FIR arose from a suo motu police complaint concerning posters allegedly found on walls beside a public road. According to the complaint, the posters stated that a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court amounted to a denial of justice and called upon people to raise their voice for justice. The complaint also stated that the posters mentioned the Popular Front of India.
The petitioners argued that these words did not disclose offences under Sections 153A or 295A IPC and that there was no material establishing a conspiracy under Section 120B. They contended that lawful dissent and criticism were protected under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the posters were displayed in a public place immediately after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and were capable of creating disharmony.
Court’s Observations
Posters Expressed Dissatisfaction With Judgment
The Court examined the complaint while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. It noted that the prosecution was based upon the posters characterising the Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice and urging people to raise their voice.
The Court held that the words reflected dissatisfaction with the judgment but did not disclose an intention to create disharmony. It found that the ingredients of Sections 153A and 295A IPC were consequently absent.
The Bench observed that the expression had to be assessed in light of the constitutional protection afforded to lawful dissent under Articles 19 and 21.
General Impact On Reasonable People Is The Test
The Court relied upon Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024), in which the Supreme Court considered the right to dissent against government decisions and the restrictions permissible under Article 19(2).
The Court noted the Supreme Court’s observation that people understand the importance of democratic values and that the possibility of stirring the emotions of some members of a group would not, by itself, establish the offence.
The Court stated: “The people of our country know the importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religion groups.”
The Court further referred to Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) while considering the ingredients of Section 153A IPC. It observed that the impact of the expression had to be assessed from the perspective of a significant number of reasonable people.
The Court stated: “The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC.”
The petitioners had also relied upon Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) and several Karnataka High Court decisions concerning Sections 153A and 295A IPC.
Continuation Of Proceedings Was Unwarranted
Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjustified because the posters represented dissent against a judgment rather than an attempt to create disharmony.
The Court held: “Having considered the discussion made in detail by the Apex Court and the principles laid down, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only it is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Conclusion
The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.
Cause Title: Mahammed Hanif and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:58498)
