Punjab and Haryana High Court denies relief to lawyer booked for using term ‘casteist goons’ in public speech

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that the right to free speech does not extend to the use of expressions such as ‘casteist goons’ as they impute criminality, moral depravity, and collective blame to an entire caste or social group rather than merely criticising errant individuals [Rajat Kalsan v State of Haryana].

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made the observation while rejecting a plea seeking the quashing of a criminal case against an activist-lawyer booked by the police for his public comments about a murder case.  

“When such expressions are publicly articulated and normalised, particularly in charged or emotive settings, they carry the real and imminent risk of legitimising prejudice, inciting hostility and disturbing public tranquillity. Freedom of speech cannot be stretched to shield expressions that promote or are likely to promote alienation, public disorder or violence or that challenge the unity and integrity of the nation. Unchecked divisive speech ultimately curtail the liberties of law-abiding citizens,” the Court said.

The accused lawyer, Rajat Kalsan, was booked for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups, intentionally insulting to provoke a breach of peace and making statements conducive to public mischief.

The criminal case against Kalsan was registered in July following a complaint alleging that, during a speech at a public meeting in Hisar, he referred to some villagers as 'casteist goons' for allegedly trying to falsely implicate a Scheduled Caste (SC) woman and others in a murder case.

It is alleged that Kalsan claimed that the deceased woman, belonging to a particular caste, had been murdered by her own family members over a property dispute in 2024. He further alleged that the police, at the instance of villagers, falsely implicated an SC woman and others in the case. 

According to the complaint, Kalsan stated that this was done to exert pressure on the Scheduled Caste woman to withdraw an earlier case filed by her under the SC/ST Act. The woman had registered the case after her son was allegedly beaten by the other caste members over accusations of stealing a chicken.

Considering Kalsan’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR against him, the Court opined that the very fact that he started his address by saying that he would be accused of targeting a caste indicates that he was fully conscious of the nature and tenor of the speech.

There was no occasion for him to have repeated the word caste or casteist ‘gundas’ (thugs) again and again, the Court said. It added that a generic expression or a neutral reference to the complainant and the accused would have adequately served the purpose.

“The persistent and deliberate reference to 'caste' and 'casteist goons' in the speech cannot, therefore, be brushed aside as inadvertent or incidental. It rather shows that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to be using such expression so as to incite people, which had the potential to create a public disorder and posing imminent danger to public tranquility,” the Court said.

The Court further said that the socio-economic background and the mental faculties of the audience to whom such a speech is addressed are equally relevant considerations.

The speech in the present case was not delivered as part of a reasoned discourse in a seminar or an academic forum, where allegations of atrocities might be debated as an expression of opinion within the bounds of informed discussion, it noted.

“On the contrary, the speech was addressed to a public crowd that had assembled in connection with and probably in response to a call for support against caste atrocity. In such a setting, emotive and caste-laden expressions possess a far greater potential to inflame passions, polarise the audience and disturb public tranquility,” the Court said.

The Court also opined that Kalsan had travelled beyond the scope of his duty as an advocate while addressing a congregation, alleging false implications and uploading such content on the internet.

“As an Advocate, his job is to defend his client in a Court of Law and not on a public platform by arranging public protests. By choosing to address a congregation and ventilate allegations in a public forum, the petitioner travelled beyond the domain of professional advocacy into the realm of public mobilisation. The same reflects the passionate attachment of the petitioner to the incident thus, making him an interested participant seeking to influence perceptions relating not only to the prosecution but also to the eventual outcome of the case,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that Kalsan’s role cannot be viewed as being on the same footing as that of a dispassionate and independent professional discharging his duties strictly within the confines of the courtroom.

Concluding that Kalsan failed to give any satisfactory explanation for using the expression casteist hooligans/ gundas, the Court dismissed his plea to quash the case. 

Advocates Arjun Sheoran and Tejasvi Sheokand appeared for the petitioner. 

[Read Judgment]