Criticising Supreme Court's Judgment As 'Denial Of Justice' Not Offence : Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Under S.153A, 295A IPC

Clarifying the ambit of right to dissent, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against 13 persons for allegedly painting slogans on a public wall that criticized a Supreme Court judgment. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425]

The single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held that merely expressing dissatisfaction with a verdict does not amount to sedition or promoting disharmony.

“…it appears that a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the judgment [of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra And Another [2024]]… Though the said slogans are against dissatisfaction of the judgment of the Apex Court, while invoking Section 153A, there must be ingredient of sedition against the State…”, the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by the accused seeking the quashment of FIR registered at the Mangalore South Police Station in 2019 and further criminal proceedings. The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, a/w Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951.

The FIR came to registered based on a suo motu complaint lodged by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalore South Police Station. According to the inspector, following the pronouncement of a judgment by the Apex Court, slogans were found to be painted on the walls by the roadside, allegedly done by the accused.

The slogans read that the judgment was a 'denial of justice', while raising the 'voice for justice'. According to the police, the slogans were from the 'Popular Front of India' (PFI). Based on this, alleging that the act was intended to create disharmony in the country, the police registered the FIR.

Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the very registration of the case or the complaint did not disclose any offence to invoke the aforesaid sections.

Emphasizing that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, the petitioners contended that expressing disagreement with a judgment does not amount to sedition or outraging religious feelings in a society.

Relying on Javed Ahmad Hajam, the petitioners argued that the right to dissent in a lawful manner is an integral part of democracy, which is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.

The state, to the contrary, argued that right after the pronouncement of the Apex Court judgment, the petitioners reacted and posted posters in a public place. It was submitted that this act of the petitioners was likely to create disharmony in the country.

The Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the complaint itself merely stated that the judgment was a 'denial of justice', and raised 'voice for justice'.

“…If that is the wording used, it will not attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC…”, the court clarified.

The Court hence concluded that merely expressing dissatisfaction with a judgment of the Apex Court does not meet this threshold.

Relying on the principles laid down in Javed Ahmad Hajam, the Court iterated that the test for an offence under Section 153A is the general impact of the words on a significant number of reasonable people.

“Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC”, the Court stated by relying on the precedent.

“….Having considered the discussion made in detail by the Apex Court and the principles laid down, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only itis 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 court inferred while allowing the plea for quashing the FIR.