Criticising SC Verdict is Not an Offence

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A single-judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court decided Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026). The Court held that merely expressing dissatisfaction with a judgment of the Supreme Court, by calling it a "denial of justice" and raising a "voice for justice", does not attract Section 153A (now Section 196 BNS) or Section 295A (now Section 299 BNS) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

• Exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings. 

What was the Background of Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• Following the pronouncement of a judgment by the Supreme Court, slogans were found painted on roadside walls in Mangalore. 
• The slogans described the judgment as a "denial of justice" and called for raising the "voice for justice". 
• The Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Mangalore South Police Station lodged a suo motu complaint, alleging that the slogans were painted by the accused and were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI). 
• Alleging that the act was intended to create disharmony in the country, the police registered an FIR in 2019 against 13 persons. 
• The FIR invoked Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with Section 3 of the Karnataka open places disfigurement law. 
• The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and further criminal proceedings. 
• Petitioners' contentions:  
  • The complaint, even if accepted as it stands, discloses no offence under the sections invoked. 
  • Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech, and disagreeing with a judgment is neither sedition nor an attempt to outrage religious feelings. 
  • Relying on Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the right to dissent in a lawful manner is integral to democracy and is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21. 
• State's contentions:  
  • The petitioners reacted immediately after the judgment by putting up slogans in a public place. 
  • The act was likely to create disharmony in the country. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the content of the complaint: 

• The complaint itself only stated that the slogans called the judgment a "denial of justice" and raised a "voice for justice". 
• If that is the wording used, the ingredients of Sections 153A and 295A IPC are not attracted. 

On dissent against a judgment: 

• Though the slogans expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's judgment, this amounts only to dissent about the judgment and not to creating disharmony. 
• The Court observed that for invoking Section 153A, there must be an element of acting against the State, which was absent here. 
• Expressing disagreement with a verdict falls within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

On the test under Section 153A (applying Javed Ahmad Hajam): 

• The test is the general impact of the words on a significant number of reasonable people. 
• The mere possibility that a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will is not sufficient to attract clause (a) of Section 153A(1) IPC. 

On the exercise of inherent power: 

• Having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court found it a fit case to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners.

What is Section 196 of the BNS? 

About: 

• Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. 
• It corresponds to Section 153A of the IPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 196(1)(a): Whoever, by words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups, castes or communities. 
• Section 196(1)(b): Whoever commits any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between such groups, which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity. 
• Section 196(1)(c): Whoever organises or participates in any exercise, movement, drill or similar activity intending or knowing that participants will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence against any such group. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. 
• Section 196(2): If the offence is committed in a place of worship or in an assembly engaged in religious worship or ceremonies, imprisonment up to 5 years and fine. 

What is Section 299 of the BNS? 

About: 

• Section 299 of the BNS deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. 
• It corresponds to Section 295A of the IPC. 

Provisions: 

• Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens, by words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. 
• Essential ingredient: The intention must be deliberate and malicious. Insults made unwittingly or carelessly are not covered.