In a significant ruling reflecting the importance of constitutional freedoms and proper interpretation of criminal law, the Allahabad High Court recently held that mere expression of support for Pakistan, in isolation and without any provocative context or incitement against India, does not amount to an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This section deals with acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. The judgment came in a case involving an 18-year-old youth who had been arrested and charged for an Instagram story in which he expressed support for Pakistan. The Court ruled that the act, though potentially controversial or even distasteful to some, could not be deemed criminal in the absence of intent to incite rebellion or subversion.
The case involved an Instagram story posted by the petitioner, Riyaz, in which he wrote, “Chahe jo ho jaaye, support to bas Pakistan ka karenge.” The message made no mention of India, its citizens, government, or any incident that could link the expression to a potential threat to Indian sovereignty. Nonetheless, the police registered a case against him under Section 152 of the BNS, which criminalizes acts or words aimed at encouraging secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities against India’s unity. In addition, Riyaz was charged under Section 196 of the BNS, relating to promoting enmity between groups.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, presiding over the case, delivered a balanced and detailed judgment emphasizing that the invocation of Section 152 must be based on reasonable standards and cannot be triggered merely because someone expresses support for a foreign country. The Court made it clear that unless an expression, either by words or actions, clearly demonstrates an attempt to incite violence, rebellion, or a breakdown of national unity, such expression cannot be treated as criminal under this law.
The Court emphasized the fundamental right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. While this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, such restrictions must be justified by compelling state interest, especially when the consequences of invoking criminal law involve severe penalties, including imprisonment for life. In Riyaz’s case, the Court noted that the Instagram post was merely an act of expressing a personal opinion or preference, however undesirable or controversial it might seem, and it lacked any reference to undermining India or its unity.
In evaluating whether Section 152 could be attracted, the Court explained that the provision requires a high threshold of proof. It mandates that the act must be intended to excite or attempt to excite secession, rebellion, or disruption of India's integrity. There must be a direct connection between the words used and the incitement of actions that could destabilize the State. The Court held that in the present case, the phrase used by Riyaz did not even remotely indicate an intent to provoke violence, inspire rebellion, or call for any anti-India activity.
Further, the Court also reviewed the procedural aspects of the case. It observed that for charges under Section 196 of the BNS, which concerns promoting enmity on grounds of religion, caste, language, or place of birth, a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before registering a First Information Report (FIR). This is laid out in Section 173(3) of the BNS. However, the police had not conducted this essential inquiry before filing charges against Riyaz, rendering the procedural basis of the charges defective.
The Court also considered the social and personal circumstances of the petitioner. Riyaz was a young adult with no criminal history and no record of involvement in any anti-social or anti-national activities. The Court viewed his conduct as a one-time lapse in judgment that did not justify pre-trial incarceration. It granted him bail and noted that while the expression might offend patriotic sentiments, it did not cross the legal threshold required to be deemed criminal under the BNS.
While granting bail, the Court cautioned the petitioner to avoid making any such statements in the future that could potentially disturb social harmony or attract penal provisions. It reiterated that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences when speech is used to provoke, incite, or destabilize peace and order. However, in this case, the speech did not meet that standard and therefore could not be legally penalized.
This judgment holds wide implications for how courts, law enforcement agencies, and the public interpret laws related to national security and public order. In recent times, there has been a growing trend of invoking stringent criminal provisions against individuals for social media posts or statements perceived to be “anti-national.” The Allahabad High Court's ruling provides judicial clarity that not all expressions of dissent, preference, or criticism amount to a threat against the State.
The ruling strengthens the democratic value of free expression by setting clear boundaries for what can and cannot be criminalized under laws meant to protect national integrity. It also reinforces the importance of due process and the need for strict procedural compliance, especially when serious charges are involved. The judgment makes it clear that law enforcement must not act in haste or succumb to public pressure when assessing whether an individual's words constitute a criminal act under national security laws.
In addition, the Court’s emphasis on context is significant. Words cannot be interpreted in isolation; their meaning must be assessed in relation to the situation in which they were said, the platform used, and the intention behind them. A young person’s casual or impulsive social media post, devoid of context and intent to harm, cannot be equated with calculated acts of sedition or incitement.
This case also serves as a reminder of the need for public tolerance. While national sentiment is important, democratic societies must allow space for differing views, even if they are unpopular or provocative. Criminal law should be reserved for genuine threats, not symbolic gestures or poorly worded expressions of personal opinion.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court has upheld a crucial balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the State. The judgment reinforces that expression, without active harm or intent to incite, must be protected under the constitutional right to free speech. At the same time, it lays down strict standards for invoking laws that deal with the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, ensuring that these provisions are used judiciously, not reactively. This case is likely to influence similar decisions across jurisdictions and may act as a guide for law enforcement, judicial authorities, and the broader public in interpreting what constitutes a genuine threat to national unity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.