Bareilly Violence | 'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Against India's Sovereignty, Incites Armed Rebellion; No Quranic Basis : Allahabad HC Denies Bail

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that such slogans incite people to "armed rebellion" and are punishable under Section 152 BNS. The Single Judge opined that it is also against the basic tenets of Islam.

Importantly, the Court also observed that the said slogan does not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious text belonging to Muslims and even then, this slogan is being used widely by several Muslims without knowing its correct meaning and effect.

These observations were made by the HC while dealing with a bail petition filed by one Rihan, who was arrested following violent protests in the Kotwali area of Bareilly.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on September 26, after Ittefaq Minnat Council (INC) President Maulana Taukir Raza and leader Nadeem Khan allegedly incited a crowd to assemble at Islamia Inter College to demonstrate against "atrocities and false cases against Muslim youth".

Despite the enforcement of Section 163 BNSS, which prohibits the assembly of more than five persons, a crowd of over 500 people had allegedly gathered and they raised slogans against the government, including one slogan calling for beheading.

As per the allegations, when police attempted to intervene, the mob turned violent and they started snatching the canes of the policemen and also torn their uniform and on objecting by the police, they started throwing petrol bomb, firing and stone pelting which also resulted into injury to several policemen and theyalso damage to several police and private vehicles.

In his detailed 9-page order denying bail to the accused, the HC stressed that while the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions.

"Therefore, if a person, instead of respecting the law framed under the Indian Constitution, attempts to challenge the law or promotes or incites people to commit an offence in the garb of providing punishment... that should be dealt with strictly," the Court observed.

The Court explicitly remarked that chanting this very slogan, which calls for beheading, is "not only against the constitutional object but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the Indian legal system."

Significantly, in its order, the High Court traced the origin of this slogan not to Islamic scripture, but to political turmoil in Pakistan. The Court observed that the slogan has no trace in the Quran or in other religious texts of Muslims.

The order notes as to how blasphemy laws evolved in Pakistan, from the 1927 law enacted by the English Government to the amendments introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1982 and subsequent additions in 1986.

The Court noted that Mulla Khadim Hussain Rizvi first used the slogan in question in Pakistan following the 2011 conviction of Asia Bibi and the support extended to her by the Punjab Governor, Salman Taseer.

"Thereafter, this slogan also spread to other countries including India and has been widely misused by certain Muslims just to intimidate the people of other religions and also to challenge the authority of the State," the Court remarked.

The Court also cited the example of Prophet Mohammad's conduct in the city of Taif. The Single Judge noted that the Prophet never retaliated against a non-Muslim woman who frequently threw garbage in his path, but instead visited her when she fell ill, which, the Court said, was an act of kindness that led her to embrace Islam.

The HC added that if any follower of Islam raises a slogan for beheading any person who disrespects the Nabi, that is nothing but disrespect to the ideals of Prophet Mohammad

The Judge added that while slogans like "Nara-e-Takbir", "Allahu Akbar", "Har Har Mahadev", "Jai Shree Ram", "Jo bole so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal" are devotional calls used in joyful moments, the misuse of slogans to intimidate others or incite violence cannot be condoned.

On the merits, with reference to the applicant's case, the Court found sufficient material in the case diary to establish his presence in the "unlawful assembly."

The Court noted that the applicant was arrested from the spot where the mob had not only raised the objectionable slogans but also caused injuries to policemen and damaged public and private property.

Thus, terming the act an "offence against the State", the High Court rejected the bail application.