Karnataka HC quashes sedition case over posters criticising Babri verdict
text_fields
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case against 13 people accused of putting up posters in Mangaluru criticising the Supreme Court's 2019 Babri Masjid verdict, ruling that the posters constituted protected dissent.
In an order dated October 15, Justice H P Sandesh said the posters expressed disagreement with the judgment and did not promote disharmony.
"It is a fit case to exercise the power to quash proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the terms of creating disharmony, and only it is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the judge said.
The Mangaluru South police registered a suo motu case on November 16, 2019, against Muhammad Hanif and others under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The police alleged that the posters, which described the Supreme Court verdict as a denial of justice, had created disharmony.
In 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the disputed Babri Masjid land should be handed over to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba argued that the posters were protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech under Article 19. He also cited the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra on freedom of expression and the right to live with dignity under Article 21.
The High Court observed that the posters raised concerns about the denial of justice and did not meet the requirements for the offences alleged.
"It appears that a voice is raised with regard to the judgment of the Apex Court. That too, the word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC," the court said.
The court also held that merely because some individuals might develop hatred or ill will, it would not be sufficient to attract Section 153A(1)(a) of the IPC.