Allahabad HC: Forwarding 'Pakistan Zindabad' Post Not an Act Endangering Sovereignty Under BNS

In a significant ruling offering early judicial interpretation of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Allahabad High Court has held that merely forwarding a social media post with a "Pakistan Zindabad" slogan does not constitute an offence under Section 152 of the BNS, which addresses acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

The single-judge bench of Justice Santosh Rai, while granting bail to Meerut resident Sajid Chaudhary, drew a crucial distinction between acts that may promote disharmony and those that genuinely threaten the nation's integrity. The Court cautioned against a narrow construction of free speech and expression, setting a high bar for the invocation of the stringent new provision.

---

Case Background: A Social Media Post and a New Law

The case originated from the arrest of Sajid Chaudhary on May 13, 2025, following the circulation of a social media post he had forwarded. The post, which read, "Kamran Bhatti Proud of You, Pakistan Zindabad," led to his incarceration under Section 152 of the BNS. The police at Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, booked him for an act allegedly endangering India's sovereignty.

During the bail hearing, Chaudhary’s counsel, Ajay Kumar Pandey and Alok Singh, argued that their client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. Their central submission was that Chaudhary had neither authored nor created the content; he had simply forwarded a message received from another person "without any intention to incite hatred or disturb public order." They further highlighted that Chaudhary had no prior criminal record and that the trial's conclusion was not imminent, making continued detention a violation of his rights.

Conversely, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State of Uttar Pradesh vehemently opposed bail, labeling the applicant a "separatist with a history of similar activities." The state's counter-affidavit alleged that an inquiry into Chaudhary's Facebook profile revealed previous attempts to commit offences endangering national integrity. However, when pressed, the AGA could not produce any evidence to substantiate these claims or prove that Chaudhary had made any specific statement against the sovereignty and integrity of India. The state also conceded that the applicant had no formal criminal history.

Judicial Scrutiny of BNS Section 152

The High Court's order, dated September 25, is a meticulous examination of Section 152 of the BNS, a new provision that carries stringent punishment. Justice Rai observed that because of its severity, the section must be invoked with "reasonable care and standards of a reasonable person."

The Court's analysis delved into the fundamental principles of free speech, stating, "The freedom of speech and expression should not be narrowly construed, unless words spoken or written actually affect the sovereignty and integrity of a country or encourage separatism."

To attract the ingredients of Section 152, the Court clarified, a specific intent and purpose must be established. The judgment outlined the required elements for the offence:

"For attracting ingredients of BNS section 152, there must be a purpose by spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or electronic communication to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separating activities or endanger sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India..."

Distinguishing Endangering Sovereignty from Promoting Enmity

The most critical aspect of the ruling is the distinction the Court drew between Section 152 BNS and Section 196 BNS, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups. The Court opined that while forwarding a pro-Pakistan slogan might be ill-advised and could cause public anger, it does not automatically rise to the level of an anti-national act that threatens the country's existence.

In a pivotal observation, Justice Rai stated:

"Merely forwarding a message to show support of any country may create anger or disharmony among citizens of India and may also be punishable under BNS section 196 (promoting enmity or disharmony between different groups...), but definitely will not attract the ingredients of BNS section 152."

This distinction is legally profound. It suggests that while such acts may be prosecutable under a different, less severe provision (Section 196 carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years), they do not meet the high threshold required for an offence against the state itself, as contemplated by Section 152.

The 'Reasonable Person' Standard for Social Media Posts

Reinforcing its reasoning, the High Court extensively cited the Supreme Court's observations in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and another . The bench recounted the Apex Court's guidance that "liberty of thought and expression is one of the cornerstone ideals of our Constitution."

Crucially, the Court adopted the Supreme Court's "reasonable person" test for evaluating controversial social media content. Justice Rai noted the Apex Court's view that such cases should not be judged by the standards of the hyper-sensitive.

"It is further observed by the Apex Court that before registering a case regarding a post on social media, it should be looked into as a reasonable man and decision should be based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds," the High Court recounted.

This principle serves as a judicial bulwark against the criminalization of expression based on the most fragile or easily offended segments of society.

Bail Granted on Constitutional and Practical Grounds

Ultimately, the Court granted bail to Sajid Chaudhary, factoring in several considerations. Beyond the prima facie weakness of the Section 152 charge, the Court acknowledged the applicant's prolonged incarceration since May, the uncertainty surrounding the trial's completion, and his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The pervasive issue of overcrowding in jails was also noted as a contributing factor.

Chaudhary was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, with stringent conditions attached to prevent misuse of liberty, including non-tampering with evidence and mandatory attendance at trial.

Legal Implications and the Way Forward

This judgment from the Allahabad High Court is one of the first authoritative interpretations of Section 152 of the BNS and is likely to have a significant precedential value. It serves as a crucial guide for law enforcement agencies and lower courts on how to approach cases involving provocative or unpopular speech on social media.

For legal practitioners, the ruling provides clear lines of argument: 1. Intent is Paramount: The prosecution must prove a specific purpose to endanger India's sovereignty, not just the act of sharing content. 2. Distinction is Key: Defense counsels can now firmly argue for the application of Section 196 over Section 152 where the alleged act primarily causes disharmony rather than inciting rebellion or separatism. 3. The 'Reasonable Person' Test: The judgment reinforces a vital Supreme Court standard, arming the defense against charges based on public outrage rather than a genuine threat to national security.

This decision underscores a judicial commitment to protecting freedom of expression while navigating the complexities of the digital age and the enforcement of new penal laws. It cautions the state against the overzealous application of stringent national security provisions for acts that, while potentially offensive, do not rise to the level of a direct attack on the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

Case: Sajid Chaudhary vs. State of U.P.
Bail Application No.: 21835 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Santosh Rai