Punjab & Haryana High Court: Anti-Government Slogans Alone Do Not Amount to Sedition
In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional right to dissent, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely raising slogans against the government in a democratic setup cannot, by itself, attract charges of sedition. The Court observed that criticism or expression of dissatisfaction with the government is fundamentally different from inciting hatred against the State or threatening the nation’s sovereignty.
The judgment came while dismissing an appeal filed by the Haryana Government against the acquittal of four persons accused in connection with the violence that erupted in 2017 following the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The accused had faced charges including sedition after allegedly participating in protests during which public property was damaged and anti-government slogans were raised.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur clarified that while violent acts during a protest may constitute offences such as rioting or destruction of public property, they do not automatically satisfy the ingredients of sedition. The Court stressed that a slogan against the government is often a form of expressing dissent and does not necessarily reflect hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the State.
The Bench observed that frustration, dissatisfaction or even public outrage against governmental actions cannot be equated with the “disaffection” required to establish sedition. Since sedition carries grave consequences, courts must strictly examine whether every essential ingredient of the offence is actually made out before permitting prosecution.
Referring to the evidence in the case, the High Court found that the prosecution had primarily relied on allegations of sloganeering against the government and participation in the protest. It held that such material, without proof of incitement to violence against the State or an attempt to undermine its authority, was insufficient to sustain a charge of sedition. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
The ruling is expected to have wider significance in cases involving protests and public demonstrations. It reiterates the long-standing constitutional principle that peaceful criticism of the government and expressions of dissent are protected in a democracy, while only conduct that crosses the threshold into incitement against the State can attract the stringent offence of sedition or its successor provisions under the new criminal laws.
