Sloganeering Against Government In Democracy Is Not Sedition

In a significant reinforcement of democratic freedoms, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that raising slogans against the government or its wings does not constitute sedition. A Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur upheld the acquittal of four individuals in a 2017 case related to a violent protest in Kaithal, Haryana.

The Backdrop: A Flashpoint of Unrest The case originated from the widespread civil unrest that followed the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in 2017. In the immediate aftermath, an angry mob allegedly vandalized the office of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) in Kalayat, Kaithal district. The complainant, a Sub-Divisional Officer, alleged that approximately 14–15 individuals armed with sticks, weapons, and petrol bottles stormed the office, caused property damage, and set the premises on fire while raising anti-national slogans.

The Legal Question: Dissent vs. Sedition The central legal question before the High Court was whether the protesters' actions—specifically the sloganeering against the government—met the high threshold required to invoke Section 124-A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court held that the prosecution lacked the necessary grounding for such a grave charge, noting that slogans in an elected democracy are a form of political speech rather than an effort to overthrow the state.

Failure of the Prosecution’s Case While the State of Haryana argued that the accused were guilty of rioting, arson, and sedition, the High Court identified critical failures in the investigation:

1. Identity Crisis: The court highlighted that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, even though the witnesses were strangers to the accused. Identification for the first time in court, without a prior TIP, significantly undermined the reliability of the evidence.
2. Lack of Forensic Evidence: Despite claims that petrol was used to torch the office, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report found no traces of inflammable residues on the items recovered.
3. Inconsistent Testimony: The court noted that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory versions, and the investigation failed to link the accused specifically to the crime, relying instead on hearsay and "disclosure statements" that were inadmissible in law.

Key Observations The judgment offers a clear distinction between criminal violence and sedition, emphasizing the protection of dissent in a democracy:

"A violent protest may amount to rioting but such action of violence would not be perceived as an act of bringing in hatred or contempt against the government. A sloganeering against the Government or wings of governance, in an elected democracy, would not be sufficient to slap charges of sedition against its citizens. A frustration or dissatisfaction or even outrage is not disaffection or hatred."

The Bench further clarified the role of the judiciary in grave offenses:

"Court is hence required to ensure that when the charge becomes grave and the punishment harsh, the ingredients and their existence is strict. The evidence on record is merely suggestive of slogans against the government, which are only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred, contempt or disaffection."

Decision and Implications Observing that the state's case was built on "broad suspicion" rather than concrete proof, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal granted by the Trial Court in 2019 . The ruling serves as a vital reminder that in criminal jurisprudence , "suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof," and that in a functioning democracy, expressing anger towards governance is a constitutional right rather than an act of treason .