Rajasthan News: The Rajasthan High Court has said that Section 152 of the Indian Judicial Code (BNS), which criminalises acts threatening the unity and integrity of India, should not be used as a sword against legitimate dissent.
Justice Arun Monga said the BNS provision originated from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes sedition and is even similar to the offense originally introduced by the British. He said the section criminalizes acts or attempts that incite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, or promote separatist sentiments that threaten the stability of the country. Prima facie, this appears to be a re-introduction of Section 124-A (sedition) by another name. The Court said that it is a matter of debate as to which of the provisions of IPC and BNS is more stringent.
What is the matter?
The High Court judge made the observation while considering a plea by a Sikh preacher seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him under Section 152 and Section 197(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code (charges prejudicial to national integrity). The demand was made. Petitioner Tejender Pal Singh was booked in July this year after he posted a video on Facebook expressing sympathy with pro-Khalistan leader and MP Amritpal Singh.
On Section 152 BNS imposed in this case, the Court emphasized that only deliberate actions with malicious intent will come under its purview. The Court also observed that the interpretation of section 152 BNS provides the required protection by exempting legitimate criticism of government policies. The Court held that for such provisions to apply there must be a direct and imminent connection between the speech and the possibility of rebellion or secession. The Court said that legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts. The Court emphasized on careful application of Section 152 BNS in line with the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Monga said in cases involving repealed IPC section 124A (sedition), casual or rhetorical statements do not amount to sedition unless they incite violence or public disorder. In my view, a similar approach would apply to Section 152 also. Its broad words need to be used carefully to prevent misuse or encroachment. It should be kept in mind that this provision is used as a shield for national security and not as a sword against legitimate dissent. Regarding Section 197 BNS, which is analogous to Section 153B of the IPC, the Court clarified that the purpose of this provision is to protect the harmony and cohesion of India’s diverse society by criminalizing acts that promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups. Have to maintain.
The judge clarified that speech which is critical, but does not incite violence or hatred, should not come under the ambit of this section. The Court also stressed that law enforcement officers must exercise restraint and discretion to prevent constructive dialogue or political disagreement. The Court said that proper judicial oversight and clear guidelines on interpreting terms such as “inconsistency” and “mala fide” are necessary to ensure that the law achieves its intended purpose without becoming an instrument of oppression or repression of dissent. Get it.
After analyzing the legal provisions, the Court examined the video uploaded by the accused.
Noting that the comments were made in Punjabi, the Court said that “colloquial Punjabi language, by its nature, may seem offensive, even if there is no malice or intention to insult. This characteristic stems from the inherent directness and enthusiasm of the language, which can sometimes be misunderstood. However, there must be solid evidence to consider such expressions criminal. Finding a statement offensive is not enough to warrant a claim without broader context or concrete harm.”
After examining other comments made by the accused, the Court said that they do not incite secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities or encourage sentiments of separatist activities or even attempt to endanger the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. We do. The court found that the case does not constitute an offense under Section 197(1) of the BNS. Thus, quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused was ordered.
