The Jharkhand High Court granted relief to the State President of the BJP by quashing criminal proceedings initiated against him, holding that public statements expressing political confidence do not amount to sedition. The petition arose from an FIR registered following remarks made by the accused in a press conference, in which he declared that the BJP would form the government in the state within two months and asserted that the existing government would not remain in power. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 124A (sedition), 504 (insulting gesture), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, characterizing the statements as a “murder of democracy” and part of a criminal conspiracy to incite disaffection.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the matter, observed that such political statements fall within the ambit of normal democratic discourse and cannot be equated with inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the established government. The Court emphasized that even if the allegations in the FIR were assumed to be true in their entirety, they would not suffice to constitute the offence under Section 124A. The judgment underscored that sedition demands a higher threshold: mere criticism, even sharply worded, or political prediction about electoral outcomes do not amount to disloyalty or incitement of violence against the state.
Regarding the charges under Section 504, the Court noted that there was no allegation of intentional insult to any individual, or conduct intended to provoke a breach of peace. The petitioner’s claim that his party would assume power could not reasonably be construed as an insult aimed to provoke disturbance. In respect of the Section 506 charge, the Court found that no acts of threats, intimidation, or coercion against any person were alleged. There was no factual claim that anyone’s reputation or property was under threat, or that the accused caused fear to force a person to act against their will.
Given the absence of factual foundation for either intentional insult or criminal intimidation, the Court concluded that the FIR failed to disclose a prima facie case for any of the alleged offences. Consequently, the Court quashed the complaint and extinguished all proceedings against the petitioner arising from the FIR. The judgment reinforces the principle that political speech must be protected and distinguishes between legitimate aspirational statements and unlawful incitements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.