Sloganeering against the government cannot lead to charges of sedition against citizens, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed..A Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur added that a violent protest may amount to rioting but such action of violence cannot be perceived as an act of bringing in hatred or contempt against the government.“A sloganeering against the Government or wings of governance, in an elected democracy, would not be sufficient to slap charges of sedition against its citizens. A frustration or dis-satisfaction or even outrage is not a disaffection or hatred,” the Court said in judgment passed on July 02..The Bench made these observations while upholding acquittal of three accused in a case of rioting and sedition registered in relation to the violence that had broken out in Haryana in August 2017 after conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.One of the accusations against the accused was that they had raised slogans in support of Dera Sacha Sauda and against the government. The Court said,“The evidence on record is merely suggestive of slogan against Government, which is only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred/contempt or dis-affection.”.The accused had been acquitted by a trial court in 2019. The State government challenged the decision in 2021.Upholding the acquittal of the accused, the High Court ruled that there were substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation and absence of forensic corroboration in the case. “Accordingly, we find no illegality, perversity, impropriety, misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The present appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed,” the Court said..Senior Deputy Advocate General Paras Talwar represented the State.Senior Advocate Hemant Bassi with Advocates Gursimran Kaur, Saloni Chhabra represented the respondents. Advocate Sanjiv Kumar Yadav also represented a respondent.[Read Judgment]
