Sloganeering Bharath Matha ki Jai would only lead to harmony and never discord.

In a criminal petition filed before the Karnataka High Court  the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing a FIR u/s 153A of IPC observed that “Sloganeering Bharath Matha ki Jai would only lead to harmony and never a discord’’.

To summarise this case, on the evening of June 9^th, 2024, between 8:45 p.m. and 9:15 p.m., Harish, Nanda Kumar, Subhash, and Kishan Kumar (Petitioners) were returning from a victory celebration and oath-taking ceremony of the Prime Minister. When they reached  Samadan Bar in Boliyar Grama, Ullal Taluk,  it was the case of the petitioners  they were allegedly attacked by 25 individuals for chanting "Bharath Matha Ki Jai." During the attack, Harish was stabbed in the stomach, and Nanda Kumar was injured in the back. That same night, at 11:00 p.m., Kishan Kumar lodged a complaint against 23 people, leading to the registration of offenses under various sections of the IPC, including 341, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 307, and 149. The following day, a separate complaint came to be registered not by the accused but by  one P. K. Abdulla, accusing the petitioners of threatening him and others of dire consequences  and statements asking them  to leave the country  at a place  near the Mohiuddin Jumma Masjid in Boliyar.  On the said allegation, the Police registered a crime, crime No. 81 of 2024, for  offences  punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153A, 504, 506, and 149 of  IPC. After registration of the crime,  the petitioners  approached the court, calling in question  the said  registration of crime.

Senior counsel, M. Aruna Shyam, representing the petitioners, argued that the petitioners were merely shouting slogans of "Bharath Matha Ki Jai" and mentioning the Prime Minister's name after the oath-taking ceremony. This behaviour, he contended, was not tolerated by several individuals who attacked the petitioners, even stabbing them for chanting the slogan. While this became a crime, as a counter-blast the next day  some person  by the name of P.K. Abdullah, who was not even involved in the incident , lodged a complaint  alleging that the petitioners had threatened him and others   to leave the country. The senior counsel argued that allowing an investigation in such cases would effectively mean investigating the act of shouting "Bharath Matha Ki Jai," which, he emphasised, cannot be seen as generating communal hatred under any circumstances.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor, B. N. Jagadeesh, refuting the submissions contended that this was a  classic case  where  Section 153A of the IPC would get completely attracted.  While it was true that the petitioners were assaulted,  it was his argument that this  was a  separate crime which was  being investigated. However,  he stated that based on the allegations made, the action of petitioners to threaten the complainant or others clearly fell  under the scope of Section 153A of IPC and therefore  an investigation in this matter has to be done in the least  and the petition should be dismissed.

It was the court’s observation that the complainant was not an accused. The issue, as stated  by the court, was what stopped him from registering the complaint  on the very day of the incident of June 9th, 2024, if the petitioners had threatened in whatever manner that is narrated in the complaint,’’ asked the court. The key issue was that the complainant could have filed a complaint on the same day if the petitioner had indeed threatened him in the manner described. In the case of the complaint filed by the petitioners, there were complete details of the incident mentioned and their statements were taken while they were receiving treatment in the hospital. Given that the complainant’s actions involved assaulting the petitioners, it can be interpreted that the complainant filed the complaint as a counterblast. 

After a brief perusal of section 153A of IPC the court stated that “Section 153A makes it an offence if enmity is promoted between different groups of religion. The present case is a classic illustration of misuse of Section 153A of the IPC. It is a case of counterblast to a complaint registered by these petitioners. The defence is that the petitioners were shouting Bharath Matha Ki Jai and praising the Prime Minister of the nation. The allegation by the complainant does not even refer to any of those things. To protect the skin of the complainant and others, the skin of the petitioners is sought to be ripped off. It does not meet even a single ingredient of Section 153Aof the IPC. A pure case of counterblast is sought to be projected as a crime under Section 153A of the IPC. The ingredients that are necessary to bring home the complaint under Section 153A need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.” 

The court referred to precedent cases from the Supreme Court, such as Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, and noted that based on the Supreme Court's judgments and this court's findings, the complaint filed by the complainant would be viewed as an act of retaliation.The court also referred to Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Judgment in Kollu Ankababu v. Tirupathi Ramesh. which laid down certain necessary ingredients for making an offense under section 153A of IPC which are as follows: 

“18. The ingredients necessary for making out  an offence under Section 153-A(b) is the commission of 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. 

19. The ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 153-A(c) is to organise any exercise, movement, drill etc., so that participates in such activities can be trained to use violence or criminal force 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 communities. 

20. The language in all the three sub-clauses of Section 153-A require the following conditions to be met before any offence can be said to have been 

committed within this provision:— 

a) The actions should cause enmity between groups; Ill will against one group would not attract the above provisions.

b) These actions should be committed with the intention of causing such enmity. 

c) This provision would be applicable only where enmity is caused on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever. 

d) The term “or any other ground whatsoever” would have to be read in tandem with the preceding words and as such the scope of this term would be that the grounds would only have to be grounds akin to the preceding grounds set out in the provision. 

e) The groups between whom such enmity or disharmony or hatred or ill-will is caused would be groups defined on the basis of their religion, race, language, place of birth, caste or community. 

f) Differences or ill-will caused between two groups which are not defined on the basis of the above requirements would not attract the provisions of Section 153-A IPC.”

The court determined that , ‘’placing the afore-narrated facts   and the judgements extracted  supra, permitting even investigation into this case would  be  prima facie  permitting investigation  into  the  sloganeering of Bharath Matha Ki Jai inter alia,  which can by no stretch of imagination  be  promoting disharmony or enmity amongst religions. Sloganeering  Bharath Mata KI  Jai would only lead to harmony and never a discord’’.  The  criminal petition was allowed  and the FIR was quashed.

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Advocate M. Aruna Shyam.

Advocate for the Respondent: APP B. N. Jagadeesh. 

Case Details: Suresha & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. Criminal Petition no. 5694 of 2024