Public Discussion On Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification Doesn't Amount To Promoting Enmity: Sikkim High Court

Sikkim High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against members of Gorkha Seva Sena over an invitation to participate in a public consultation on the constitutional legality of the proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim unification.

In doing so the court held that inviting people to deliberate on a sensitive constitutional issue does not, by itself, amount to promoting enmity between groups under Section 196 BNS. 

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that in a healthy democracy, views and opinions must be countered through contrary views even if they are disliked by many. The freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects such public discussions.

"History reveals that the constitutional provisions have been tested time and again in the Indian context over the last 76 years and each time it has withstood any aberrations. Debates and deliberations during a public consultation seeking views of constitutional legality of what one group of people perceive may be the right course of action, as opposed to the contrary view of another group regarding the alleged proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification, ought not to provoke such extreme sentiments as to attract the mischief of section 196 BNS. A contrary view, which may be clearer, better reasoned and legally sound, may be more persuasive. In the words of the Supreme Court “In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.”

Further borrowing the words of the Supreme Court “When an offence punishable under Section 196 BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.” Therefore, an invitation, by itself, for a public consultation for constitutional legality of Darjeeling and Sikkim Unification would not attract the provision of section 196 of BNS"

The High Court was hearing two petitions seeking quashing of an FIR, chargesheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising from an invitation issued by Gorkha Seva Sena for a programme titled '50th Sikkim State Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation'.

The programme was scheduled to be held on June 15, 2025, at Town Hall, Naya Bazar, Kurseong, West Bengal. The invitation sought public participation in a civic dialogue on the “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification”.

The FIR was registered on June 6, 2025 following a complaint by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Sikkim. It alleged that the organisers had used the official logo and theme of the Sikkim Government without authorisation which created the impression that the State Government endorsed the programme. It was further alleged that the invitation could provoke enmity between people of Sikkim and Darjeeling and disturb public order.

The FIR alleged offences under various provisions of the BNS including promoting enmity between groups along with the alleged unauthorised use of the Government's emblem under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. A chargessheet was subsequently filed against the organisers.

During the hearing, the State's counsel acknowledged that there was no material to proceed against the accused for most of the offences. The High Court was therefore primarily concerned with whether the invitation to the consultation could amount to promoting enmity between groups under Section 196 of the BNS.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 196 and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Imran Pratapgadhi vs State of Gujarat, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 721.

Applying these principles, the High Court held that the invitation merely sought public participation in a consultation on the constitutional legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim unification. A debate or deliberation on a constitutional question even one that is sensitive or controversial cannot automatically be treated as an attempt to promote disharmony, hatred or ill-will between groups.

The High Court further observed that the provision shall be assessed from the standpoint of reasonable, strong minded and courageous individuals rather than those with weak or wavering minds who may perceive criticism or an opposing viewpoint as a threat.

However, the High Court disapproved of the unauthorised use of the Sikkim Government's official logo describing it as prima facie mischievous. It clarified that such use did not convert the invitation into an offence under Section 196 of the BNS. The State Government remained free to take appropriate action in relation to the unauthorised use of its emblem.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed both petitions and quashed FIR, Chargesheet and the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Gangtok.

For the Petitioners: Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Tara Devi Chettri, Ms. Niyashi Rai and Ms. Sohitya Kala Limboo, Advocates, in the first petition; and Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha, Advocate, in the connected petition.

For the State: Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor.