The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against 13 people accused of displaying posters in Mangaluru criticising the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment, holding that expressing disagreement with a judicial decision and demanding justice falls within the constitutional protection of free speech and does not, by itself, make out offences under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, Law Trend reported.
Justice H P Sandesh, in an order dated October 15, observed that the posters merely conveyed dissatisfaction with the verdict and called for justice, and found no material suggesting the expressions were intended to create disharmony or promote hostility. '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, Maktoob Media reported.
Source: Maktoob Media — 'Dissent, not a crime': Karnataka HC quashes case over posters against Babri verdict
On Section 153A, the High Court said an act must be judged by its likely effect on reasonable, ordinary persons in significant numbers, and that the subjective reaction of a few individuals developing ill will is not enough to establish the offence, Latestly reported. The court concluded the material on record did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 153A and 295A and quashed the case and all pending proceedings against the 13 petitioners.
The case began with a suo motu case registered by Mangalore South police on November 16, 2019, against Mahammed Hanif and 12 others, days after a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously directed that the entire disputed Ayodhya land be transferred to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple and that five acres be allotted at a suitable location in Ayodhya for a mosque. Police alleged the posters had created disharmony in the country — an allegation the High Court has now held does not meet the legal threshold for prosecution.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba argued that displaying posters questioning a judicial decision was an exercise of the Article 19 right to free speech, that the slogans did not amount to sedition, and relied on the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra on Article 19(1)(a) and the Article 21 right to live with dignity, Law Trend reported.