Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against persons who put up posters terming Supreme Court judgment a "denial of justice"

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against 13 people for allegedly putting up posters in Mangaluru describing a Supreme Court judgment as a “denial of justice" and calling on people to raise their voices for justice [Mahammed Hanif & others Vs State of Karnataka].

Justice HP Sandesh held that the slogans amounted to an expression of dissent against the judgment, which fell within the limits of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

"The same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only it is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court's October 15 ruling said.

The Court concluded that such slogans did not attract the cited criminal offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case involved allegations that posters bearing slogans stating that a Supreme Court judgment was a "denial of justice", and urging people to raise their voices for justice, were found on roadside walls.

A complaint filed in the matter in 2019 also alleged that the posters were put up by the Popular Front of India.

The police subsequently registered a case against 13 persons under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.

The accused filed a plea to quash this case in 2021. They argued that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Expressing disagreement with a judicial verdict was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, they added.

The State opposed the plea, contending that the posters were put up in a public place immediately after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and could create disharmony.

After examining the complaint, the High Court observed that the slogans merely expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court judgment and described it as a denial of justice.

“When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC,” the Court said.

The Court added that the assessment of whether an expression promotes enmity or hatred must consider its general impact on reasonable people in significant numbers.

“Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC,” the Court observed.

The High Court further noted that although the slogans expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's verdict, the material did not establish the ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences.

Holding that the expression constituted dissent against a judgment and fell within the protection of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the case filed against the 13 petitioners.

Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba appeared for the petitioners. High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M represented the State.

[Read Judgement]