Saying 'Pakistan Zindabad' is not sedition unless India is denounced: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that praising another country without denouncing India does not amount to sedition since it does not incite the separatist feelings or subversive activities [Suleman v State of Himachal Pradesh].

Justice Rakesh Kainthla made the observation while granting bail to a man accused of sharing an AI-generated image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with words ‘Pakistan Zindabad’.

The Court noted that there was no allegation that hatred or discontent was caused towards the government established by law in India. 

“Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime,” the Court said.

The accused Suleman was booked under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by Paonta Sahib police in district Sirmour in May this year after his post was treated as inflammatory and against the interest of the nation. He surrendered before the police on July 8.  

Section 152 of BNS criminalizes acts endangering unity and integrity of India and has genesis in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalized sedition.

Suleman’s counsel argued before the Court that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that since chargesheet has already been filed in the case, no fruitful purpose would be served by his custody. 

However, the State counsel argued that the relationship between India and Pakistan was strained when the post was shared and writing ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ was anti-national.

However, the Court found that there was insufficient material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. It also noted that the police have already seized the electronic device and sent it for forensic examination. 

“The police have filed the chargesheet, and there is nothing to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody,” the Court said while granting bail to the accused.

Advocate Anubhav Chopra represented the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Lokinder Kutlheria with Deputy Advocates General Prashant Sen, Ajit Sharma and Sunena Chanhari represented the State of Himachal Pradesh

[Read Order]