The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report registered against individuals who had painted slogans on a wall criticising a judgment of the Supreme Court, holding that describing such a judgment as a 'denial of justice' does not constitute an offence under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the FIR filed under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) IPC. The allegations stemmed from wall slogans that characterised a particular Supreme Court verdict as amounting to a denial of justice.
After examining the contents of the slogans and the context in which they were made, the Bench observed that expressing disagreement with a judicial decision, even in strong or critical terms, falls within the realm of legitimate public discourse and does not, by itself, amount to promoting enmity between groups or insulting religious beliefs. The court emphasized that the language used in the slogans did not target any religious, racial, or linguistic group, nor did it contain any malicious intent to outrage the religious sentiments of any particular class.
The judgment clarified that while Section 153A IPC requires proof of an intention to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups, the mere act of criticising a court judgment does not satisfy this threshold. Similarly, for an offence under Section 295A IPC to be made out, there must be a deliberate and malicious intention to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a group. The court found no such intention evident from the slogans in question.
The Bench further noted that a vibrant democracy thrives on the freedom to criticise public institutions, including the judiciary, and that such criticism, unless it crosses into hate speech or incitement to violence, is protected under the right to freedom of expression. It warned against the misuse of criminal provisions to silence dissent or penalise legitimate critique of judicial decisions.
Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in its entirety, holding that the allegations made in the slogans did not disclose any offence punishable under the invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The order reinforces the principle that judicial accountability and public debate on court judgments are essential components of a democratic society and cannot be stifled through misapplication of penal laws.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding free speech while maintaining the balance between expression and responsible discourse, particularly in cases involving allegations against judicial verdicts.