LEGAL ISSUE: Whether expressing dissent against government actions on social media constitutes promoting disharmony under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Judgment Date: 7 March 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 7 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 187
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can expressing discontent with government decisions on social media be considered a criminal act that promotes disharmony? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a professor who was charged for his WhatsApp status criticizing the abrogation of Article 370. The court’s decision highlights the importance of free speech and the right to dissent in a democratic society. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Background
The appellant, a professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, originally from Baramulla, Kashmir, was accused of posting messages on his WhatsApp status that allegedly promoted disharmony. The messages included: “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir,” “14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan,” and “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.” These messages were posted between August 13, 2022, and August 15, 2022. Based on these posts, an FIR was registered against him at the Hatkanangale Police Station in Kolhapur under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 5, 2019 | Article 370 of the Constitution of India was abrogated. |
| August 13-15, 2022 | Appellant posted WhatsApp status messages: “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir,” “14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan,” and “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.” |
| 2022 | FIR No. 295 of 2022 registered at PS Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra. |
| April 10, 2023 | The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. |
| March 7, 2024 | Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR and the proceedings based on it. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, stating that while the message about Pakistan’s Independence Day did not violate Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the other messages could attract the offense. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision and seeking to quash the FIR.
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups. The section states:
“153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. —(1) Whoever —
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity,
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
This section aims to prevent acts that promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. The Supreme Court has interpreted this section to require a clear intention to promote such feelings and that the words should be judged by the standards of a reasonable person.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that his WhatsApp status messages did not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, or regional groups or castes or communities.
- He contended that the prosecution was an abuse of the process of law.
- He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., arguing that the intention to cause disorder or incite violence is essential for an offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The State of Maharashtra argued that whether the appellant’s words promoted disharmony or feelings of enmity was a matter of evidence to be determined during the trial.
- The State contended that the impact of the appellant’s writings on the minds of the public could only be established after examining witnesses.
- They submitted that no conclusion regarding the impact of the appellant’s messages could be drawn at this stage and that the trial should be allowed to proceed.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: No promotion of disharmony or enmity. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: Impact needs to be determined by evidence. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:
- Whether the words written on the WhatsApp status by the appellant promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, or regional groups or castes or communities, thereby attracting the offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the WhatsApp status promotes disharmony under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | No. The Court held that the messages did not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity. | The messages were an expression of dissent and criticism, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They did not target any specific group based on religion, race, etc. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal provisions:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [ (2007) 5 SCC 1 ] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that the intention to cause disorder or incite violence is essential for an offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also reiterated that the matter complained of must be read as a whole. |
| Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government [AIR 1947 Nag 1] | Nagpur High Court | Approved the view that the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm, and courageous men, not those of weak and vacillating minds. |
| Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668] | Supreme Court of India | Approved the view taken in Bhagwati Charan Shukla. The court held that the standard to be applied is that of an ordinary reasonable man. |
| Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. [(2021) 15 SCC 35] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate the importance of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, while also noting that reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right. The Court also reiterated that the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is necessary for an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Cited to highlight the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to criticize government actions. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Cited to emphasize that the right to dissent in a lawful manner is a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the words did not promote disharmony. | Accepted. The court agreed that the words did not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity. |
| Appellant’s submission that the prosecution was an abuse of process. | Accepted. The court held that continuing the prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of law. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Manzar Sayeed Khan. | Accepted. The Court relied on the principles laid down in this case. |
| Respondent’s submission that the impact of the words is a matter of evidence. | Rejected. The court held that the words, on their plain reading, did not attract Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Respondent’s submission that the trial should proceed. | Rejected. The court quashed the FIR and the proceedings based on it. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2007) 5 SCC 1]* to emphasize that the intention to cause disorder or incite violence is a key ingredient of an offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Court approved the view taken in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government [AIR 1947 Nag 1]* and Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668]* that the effect of the words must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person, not someone with a weak or vacillating mind.
- The Court referred to Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. [(2021) 15 SCC 35]* to reiterate the importance of free speech and expression and the need to protect dissent.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that criticism of government actions is a vital part of a democratic society and that the right to dissent is essential. The court also noted that the intention to promote disharmony is a crucial element for an offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that this intention was absent in the appellant’s case. The Court also took into account the need to apply the standards of a reasonable person when assessing the impact of the words.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Free Speech and Expression | 40% |
| Importance of Dissent in Democracy | 30% |
| Absence of Intention to Promote Disharmony | 20% |
| Application of Reasonable Person Standard | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the constitutional rights to free speech and dissent. Factual aspects (30%) such as the content of the WhatsApp messages and the context in which they were posted played a supporting role in the court’s reasoning.
Logical Reasoning
Appellant posted WhatsApp status criticizing abrogation of Article 370.
FIR filed under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Court examined the words used by the appellant.
Court determined that the words did not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity.
Court held that the statements were an expression of dissent, protected under Article 19(1)(a).
Court emphasized that intention to create disharmony is essential under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Court quashed the FIR and the proceedings based on it.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s WhatsApp status messages did not promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups. The court emphasized that the messages were a form of protest and criticism, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court stated, “The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or, for that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State.”
The court further noted, “If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive.” The court also highlighted the importance of the right to dissent, stating, “The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”
The court observed that the messages did not target any specific group based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. The court also stressed that the impact of the words must be judged from the standards of a reasonable person, not those with weak or vacillating minds. The court concluded that the continuation of the prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and the proceedings based on it.
Key Takeaways
- Freedom of Speech: The judgment reinforces the importance of freedom of speech and expression, including the right to criticize government actions.
- Right to Dissent: The right to dissent is recognized as an essential part of a democratic society and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Intention is Key: For an offense under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the intention to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity is a crucial element.
- Reasonable Person Standard: The impact of words must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person, not those with weak or vacillating minds.
- Abuse of Process: The court will not allow the continuation of a prosecution that is a gross abuse of the process of law.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the police machinery be enlightened and educated on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on their free speech and expression. The court further directed that they must be sensitized about the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that criticism of government actions and the expression of dissent, when not intended to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This judgment reinforces the importance of free speech and the right to dissent in a democratic society. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the context of social media posts expressing dissent.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant affirmation of the right to free speech and dissent in India. By quashing the FIR against the professor for his WhatsApp status messages, the court has sent a clear message that criticism of government actions is not a criminal act unless it is intended to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting fundamental rights and upholding democratic values.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Freedom of Speech, Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Dissent, Constitutional Rights, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, Social Media Law, Hate Speech, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: Can I be arrested for criticizing the government on social media?
A: Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has clarified that criticism of government actions is protected under freedom of speech. However, if your statements are intended to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between different groups, you could face legal consequences.
Q: What is Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. It aims to prevent acts that disturb public tranquility and promote hatred between communities.
Q: What is the “reasonable person” standard mentioned in the judgment?
A: The “reasonable person” standard means that the impact of your words will be judged from the perspective of an average person with sound judgment, not someone who is easily offended or has weak and vacillating minds.
Q: What does the judgment say about the right to dissent?
A: The judgment emphasizes that the right to dissent is an essential part of a democratic society and is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It allows citizens to express their disagreement with government policies and actions.
Q: What should I do if I am facing charges under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: If you are facing charges under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and navigate the legal process.