Introduction
Courts have the power to ensure that all the evidence is considered and to interpret laws of free speech and national security not only reasonably but justly. The recent Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment is an unadorned illustration of the leeway that all courts have in protecting fundamental rights and democratic principles. The matter sought to determine whether sharing “Pakistan Zindabad” on social media amounts to sedition as per Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. With judicious distinction between seditious utterances and constitutionally permissible speech, the court reiterated its responsibility of dispensing justice beyond the realm of mere procedural technicalities.
Background
The case began when Suleman, a street vendor in Himachal Pradesh’s Sirmanur district, was booked for sharing an AI-generated image of the Indian Prime Minister with “Pakistan Zindabad” (long live Pakistan) written on it on Facebook. He was charged under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as the police claimed the post was anti-national and posed a threat to India’s unity, especially when relations between India and Pakistan were on the boil. Suleman’s defence contended his client was an illiterate who did not know how to use social media and that his son had created his Facebook account and had access to his social media. The bail petition of the accused was filed by the defence after his arrest on July 8, 2025, arguing before the High Court that just praising a foreign country without commenting on India or creating a sense of enmity does not gel with sedition.
Key Points
- Himachal Pradesh High Court in its judgement laid down some seminal legal principles on sedition. For one, sedition requires clear incitement to hatred, violence or disaffection against the Indian government. Just saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’, again without offending India, or calling for violence, does not meet this test.
- Secondly, there has to be an overt act against the State – saluting a foreign land isn’t that. For speech to be seditious, it must be explicit in condemning India and in favour of insurrection and violence. Decoding Sedition, the court explained: “merely shouting a slogan a few times cannot be considered committing sedition, unless the slogan threatens the security of the country or intended to overthrow the government.”
- The mens rea – what is in the perpetrator’s mind, also matters. Therefore, this is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution unless there is established intent to incite hatred, disloyalty or disturbance.
- The court went on to observe that its interpretation was premised on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, which restricts the scope of the offence of sedition to cover only such acts that incite violence or cause public disorder. Recent orders of the Supreme Court, too, have cautioned against a liberal use of sedition laws.
- Lastly, the court clarified that there must be an eye-opener as to what provides anti-national intent and actual incitement, it should be material evidence – not merely use of a controversial slogan which lacks invocation.
Recent Developments
The High Court, presided by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, observed that in the complaint there was no such allegation against Suleman that his post prompted hate or discontent against the Government of India. The only evidence was the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad.” While dismissing the sedition charge, the court stressed there was not a single word of hate against India, call to violence or instigation of feeling of separatism. Accordingly, it directed Suleman to be released on bail as the continued custody was not called for and was also purposeless, as investigation had already seized all the requisite material and filed the charge-sheet.
The ruling drew an important distinction between “praising another country” and “attacking one’s own” – only the latter along with the necessary mens rea (intention) and the overt act of inciting public disorder could constitute sedition under Indian law.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court decision that the posting of “Pakistan Zindabad” alone does not constitute sedition under Section 152 BNS- without an actual denunciation of India, or a call to violence – illustrates the conviction with which the judiciary is prepared to ensure that free speech guarantees entrenched in the Constitution are not the word of a bumper sticker and to curb abuse of the repressive sedition law. This ability of the court to separate criminal incitement from constitutionally protected expression is essential in a democracy. The judgment also reminds us that the state has jurisdiction to prosecute real threats to national unity, and the courts will continue to protect citizens’ freedom and freedom of expression by demanding evidence of intentionality, incitement and creating public disorder before turning speech into a criminal act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Stuti Vineet
