No Criminal Offence In Merely Supporting Pakistan: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely showing support to Pakistan, without referring to any incident or mentioning the name of India.
- Date & Time:
- |
- Views: 17
- |
- From: India News Bull
A significant legal ruling from the Allahabad High Court has clarified that simply expressing support for Pakistan does not constitute a criminal offense under Indian law.
New Delhi:
In a noteworthy judgment, the Allahabad High Court has determined that merely expressing support for Pakistan, without reference to any specific incident or explicitly mentioning India, does not prima facie constitute an offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal delivered this ruling while considering a bail application filed by Riyaz, an 18-year-old who faced charges under Section 152 of the BNS (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India) for posting an Instagram story stating, "Chahe jo ho jai sport to bas...Pakistan ka karenge (Whatever happens, we will support only... Pakistan)".
The court observed in its order that the Instagram post contained no content suggesting disrespect toward India. Justice Deshwal stated, "Merely showing support to Pakistan without referring to any incident or mentioning the name of India, will not prima facie attract the offence under Section 152 BNS."
"For Section 152 BNS to apply, there must be a clear purpose through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or electronic communication to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage separatist sentiments that endanger India's sovereignty, unity and integrity. Therefore, simply posting a message expressing support for any country might generate anger or disharmony among Indian citizens and could potentially be punishable under Section 196 BNS, which carries up to seven years imprisonment, but would not fulfill the requirements for Section 152 BNS," the court elaborated.
Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the Imran Pratapgadhi case, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that when evaluating social media posts for potential criminal charges, authorities should apply the perspective of a reasonable person. Decisions should be based on standards of reasonable, resolute, and courageous individuals rather than those with fragile or wavering mindsets.
The court further advised that before invoking Section 152 BNS, reasonable care and standards should be employed, as speech and social media expressions fall under the protection of freedom of speech and expression. This freedom should not be narrowly interpreted unless the content directly affects national sovereignty and integrity or promotes separatism.
The applicant's legal representative argued that the post did not diminish India's dignity or sovereignty, and that merely supporting another country, even if considered an adversary, does not constitute an offense under Section 152 BNS. Additionally, since police had already filed a charge sheet, there was no need for further custodial interrogation, and the applicant would cooperate with trial proceedings if granted bail. Conversely, the prosecution contended that the social media post encouraged separatist activity, making the applicant ineligible for bail.
Taking into consideration the applicant's youth and the fact that a charge sheet had been filed, Justice Deshwal ordered Riyaz's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to the trial court's approval. The court did not express any opinion on the case's merits.
The court directed Riyaz not to influence witnesses and to cooperate fully with the trial process without seeking adjournments. Additionally, he was cautioned against engaging in any criminal activity following his release on bail.
"The applicant shall not post any material on social media which could create disharmony among citizens of India. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail," the Allahabad High Court explicitly stated.