Sloganeering against govt not sufficient to slap sedition charges: HC
Sloganeering against govt not sufficient to slap sedition charges: HC
High Court Upholds Acquittal in Kaithal Case
Sloganeering against govt not sufficient to slap – In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that chanting slogans against the government or its branches in an elected democracy does not automatically qualify as sedition. The court emphasized that disaffection or hatred must be clearly demonstrated for such charges to hold.
The bench, comprising justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur, noted that frustration or dissent alone is not enough to justify sedition accusations. They ruled that when severe penalties are involved, the prosecution must rigorously prove the necessary elements of the crime. The available evidence, they said, only shows slogans—expressions of protest, not acts of contempt or hatred.
The initial complaint was filed on August 25, 2017, at Kalayat police station in Kaithal, citing multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These included Sections 124-A (sedition), 188 (disobedience to lawful orders), 436 (fire-related mischief), 450 (trespass), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (joint liability), along with provisions from the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
On September 23, 2019, a sessions judge in Kaithal acquitted Dharampal and three others. The state had accused them of marching toward a government office, wielding lathis and petrol bottles, and damaging property through fire and vandalism. The protest was linked to a 2017 judgment that convicted Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, leader of Dera Sacha Sauda, in two rape cases.
Protest Context and Legal Arguments
The prosecution claimed the demonstrators were rallying behind Singh’s leadership and targeting government buildings. However, the court found the state’s appeal in 2021 lacked sufficient grounds to overturn the acquittal. It stressed that violent protests may constitute riots, but they do not inherently equate to hatred toward the government.
“A violent demonstration can be classified as rioting, but such actions do not necessarily reflect an intent to vilify the state,” the court observed. It also noted the trial court’s decision was not based on minor inconsistencies but on significant contradictions and gaps in evidence.
The court highlighted that the trial judge had not merely dismissed the charges due to trivial errors. Instead, the acquittal was grounded in material omissions, unreliable witness identification, and a lack of forensic support. The state failed to show the trial court had overlooked key evidence or made unjust conclusions.
Prosecution’s Burden of Proof
According to the ruling, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the state had not met this standard, relying instead on speculation and broad suspicions. It concluded that the trial judge’s interpretation of the evidence was both logical and legally sound.