Irresponsible to say PM should be hit with footwear: Karnataka High Court while quashing Bidar School sedition case
While citizens have a right to criticise the government for its policies, such criticism should be done without any intent to incite violence, observed the Karnataka High Court while quashing a sedition case filed against a school for staging a play critical of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). [Allauddin & Ors v State]
In the judgment uploaded recently, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also observed that statements made during the play that the Prime Minster should be hit with footwear was not only derogatory, but irresponsible.
"A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to resort to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder," the Court's judgment stated.
It is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that Section 124-A (which deals with sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be invoked, the Court added.
"To constitute the offence punishable under Section 124-A of IPC, there must be an attempt to bring hatred or contempt, or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India by inciting people to resort to violence and creating public disorder," it observed.
Notably, Court also emphasised that while dramatization of topics that are appealing and creative to develop a child's interest in academics is good, hovering over current political issues may imprint or corrupt young minds.
"Therefore the schools have to channelize the river of knowledge towards children for their welfare and betterment of society and not indulge in teaching the children to criticize the policies of the government, and also insult the constitutional functionaries for having taken particular policy decision which is not within the framework of imparting education," the Court said.
The plea before the Kalaburagi bench of the Court sought the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered in 2020 after students belonging to classes 4, 5, and 6 had staged a play on the CAA and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
On June 14, the Court allowed the pleas by the school's management to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Sections 504 (insult), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes), 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the IPC.
As per the complaint filed against the school's management, minor children were instructed to utter words that instilled anti-patriotic feelings. These students were further asked to hurl abusive comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Court was told.
Moreover, it was stated in the complaint that children were trained to say that if the Parliament enforced the CAA, NRC and National Population Register (NPR), then Muslims would have to leave the country.
The Court noted that the play was initially not within the knowledge of the general public. Rather, it was made known to the public only when an accused uploaded the play on his Facebook account.
As such, the Court concluded that there was no intent on the school's part to incite any violence by staging the play.
"Hence, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioners herein enacted the play with an intention to incite people to resort to violence against the government or with an intention of creating public disorder. Hence, in my considered view, the registration of the FIR for the offence under Section 124-A and Section 505(2) in the absence of essential ingredients is impermissible," the Court said.
The Court further held that for an offence under Section 153A, IPC to be attracted, there must be a deliberate intention to promote enmity between various groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and other factors.
There should also be acts by the accused that are detrimental to maintaining harmony for such an offence to be made out, the Court said.
However, the Court found that in the instant case, there was no allegation that the accused had either promoted enmity or hatred towards another religious community.
Therefore, the registration of the FIR was arbitrary, the Court concluded, and proceeded to quash the case against the management of the Shaheen School at Bidar.
Senior Advocate Ameet Kumar Deshpande and advocates Ganesh S, Deshpande GV, and Ananth S Jahagirdar appeared for the petitioners.
High Court Government Pleader Gururaj V appeared for the State and advocate Sachin M Mahajan appeared for the complainant.