Gorkha Seva Sena’s Invitation To Consultation On Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification Does Not Attract S.196 BNS: Sikkim High Court Quashes Case
The Court quashed an FIR, charge-sheet and trial against three members of Gorkha Seva Sena. It called their use of the State’s 50th Statehood logo “mischievous” and left the State free to act on it.
The Sikkim High Court has held that an invitation to a public consultation on the “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification” does not, by itself, attract Section 196 of the BNS. While referring to Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026), it held that debate on what one group sees as the right course, as against another group’s contrary view, ought not to provoke sentiments extreme enough to attract the provision.
The Court found that using the official logo of the Government of Sikkim without sanction was prima facie mischievous and could carry other consequences. It held, however, that the use would not bring the case back within Section 196, which deals with promoting enmity between groups. The State was left free to take action over the use of the emblem.
A Single Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed, “History reveals that the constitutional provisions have been tested time and again in the Indian context over the last 76 years and each time it has withstood any aberrations. Debates and deliberations during a public consultation seeking views of constitutional legality of what one group of people perceive may be the right course of action, as opposed to the contrary view of another group regarding the alleged proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification, ought not to provoke such extreme sentiments as to attract the mischief of section 196 BNS. A contrary view, which may be clearer, better reasoned and legally sound, may be more persuasive…an invitation, by itself, for a public consultation for constitutional legality of Darjeeling and Sikkim Unification would not attract the provision of section 196 of BNS”.
“Prima facie it seems to me quite clearly, mischievous. The petitioners ought not to have used the official logo without the expressed sanction of the Government of Sikkim. The illegal use of the official logo may invite the petitioners for other consequences. However, it is quite evident that even such use of the official logo would not draw the case back to the provision of section 196 of BNS, which is essentially for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”, it noted further.
Senior Advocate N. Rai appeared for the petitioners and Yadev Sharma, APP appeared for the respondent.
“With a clear understanding of the provision of section 196 and as explained by the Supreme Court if we were to revisit the offending written invitation by the Gorkha Seva Sena as well as the FIR, it is clear that the petitioners under the aegis of ‘Gorkha Seva Sena’ had sought for and invited people‟s participation for public consultation on the theme, ‘Constitutional Legality of DarjeelingSikkim Unification’”, it noted further.
Gorkha Seva Sena, a Darjeeling-based organisation, had invited the public to a “50th Sikkim State Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation” at Town Hall, Naya Bazar, Kurseong. The invitation carried the commemorative logo of the Government of Sikkim, notified for official use by Notification No. 75/Home/2024 dated September 24, 2024. On June 6, 2025, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister lodged an FIR against Noel Sharma, Bikramadi Rai and Subash Mani Singh. The FIR alleged that the invitation misled the public into believing the State endorsed the agenda and could provoke enmity between people of Sikkim and Darjeeling.
The FIR was registered under Sections 152, 196 and 336 of the BNS. The charge-sheet dated September 1, 2025 charged the accused under Sections 152, 196(1), 336(4) and 61(2). The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, citing Article 19(1)(a). At the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the prosecution lacked material under Sections 152, 336(4) and 61(2) and pressed only Section 196.
The Bench referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, under which an FIR that does not disclose a cognizable offence may be quashed. It applied the test from Imran Pratapgarhi that the effect of words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded and courageous individuals, not those who perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position. It observed that the constitutional provisions have withstood aberrations over 76 years, and that a contrary view, if clearer and better reasoned, may simply prove more persuasive.
The Court quashed the registered at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, the resultant Charge-sheet and Sessions Trial Case pending before the Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok. It directed the petitioners not to indulge in such mischievous activities by misusing others’ property.
Cause Title: Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. v. State of Sikkim (Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate N. Rai, with Advocates Tara Devi Chettri, Niyashi Rai and Sohitya Kala Limboo, Abhinav Kant Jha.
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Yadev Sharma