Dec 23, 2024 02:30 AM IST
Justice Arun Monga, while delivering the verdict on December 16, emphasised that laws restricting speech must be narrowly tailored
The Rajasthan High Court, emphasising that legitimate dissent cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts, has quashed an FIR registered against Sikh preacher Tejender Pal Singh Timma who was charged under Sections 152 and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly endangering India’s unity and sovereignty through social media posts.
Justice Arun Monga, while delivering the verdict on December 16, emphasised that laws restricting speech must be narrowly tailored. “There must be a direct and imminent connection between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion or secession to invoke such provisions,” the judge noted.
Also read | Umar Khalid gets interim bail: How long was he in jail? What are the charges against him?
The case originated from a complaint by Lakhvinder Singh, who alleged Timma had disseminated content on Facebook and WhatsApp sympathetic to Amritpal Singh, an MP under judicial custody. The complainant accused Timma of supporting Khalistan and inciting public unrest.
Section 152 of BNS, which criminalises acts endangering sovereignty and unity of India, carries a punishment of life imprisonment or up to seven years in jail along with a fine.
The court scrutinised the audio-video recording central to the case. It observed that while the speech was critical of the government, it lacked the mens rea necessary to constitute an offence under Section 152.
“Legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts. The explanation to Section 152 ensures that lawful political dissent is not stifled under the pretext of maintaining sovereignty,” Justice Monga elaborated.
Also read | High Court seeks Delhi Police stand on Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in sedition case
According to legal news website LiveLaw, the court emphasised proper judicial oversight and clear guidelines were essential for interpreting terms like “disharmony” and “ill-will” to prevent the law from becoming “a tool for oppression or suppression of dissent.”
The provision was not supposed to be seen as a sword against dissent but as a shield required for national security, the report added.
Examining the video’s content, the court noted: “Colloquial Punjabi, with its rich and expressive nature, can invariably come across as offensive, even when no malice or intent to offend is present… However, for such expressions to be deemed criminal, there must be demonstrable public repercussions or substantive evidence indicating deliberate malicious intent.”
The court also addressed procedural lapses in the investigation, noting that no incriminating evidence was presented from the petitioner’s mobile data or social media accounts. It concluded that the FIR appeared to be an abuse of the legal process, possibly motivated by malice.
Timma, represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Balia and advocate Nitin Goklani, had maintained that the FIR stemmed from a personal vendetta tied to Gurdwara rivalries.
The court found that the video’s message essentially conveyed that India belonged to all its citizens who were equal. “There was no attempt to excite rebellion or subversive activities, or promote feelings of separatist activities leading to endangered sovereignty and integrity of India,” LiveLaw quoted the court as saying.
Justice Monga concluded by highlighting the constitutional balance between individual rights and public order, stating that Section 152 “must be interpreted in conjunction with the constitutional rights to free speech and expression to ensure it does not infringe on democratic freedoms.”
Get Current Updates on…
See more
