The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Sajid Chaudhary, a Meerut resident, who was arrested for forwarding a social media post containing the slogan "Pakistan Zindabad". The court, in its order made available on Friday, observed that simply expressing support for another country does not automatically constitute an act endangering India's sovereignty.
Justice Santosh Rai, in the order dated September 25, clarified that while such posts might create disharmony and could be punishable under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for promoting enmity between groups, they do not necessarily fall under Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts endangering India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The BNS replaced the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 1, 2024.
Chaudhary was arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police and charged with sedition, promoting enmity, and acts against national unity after the "objectionable post" was circulated online. He had been incarcerated since May. His legal counsel argued that Chaudhary neither authored nor created the post but simply forwarded a message he received, without any intention to incite hatred or disturb public order. They also emphasized that he had no prior criminal record and posed no risk of tampering with evidence if released on bail. The government counsel, however, claimed that Chaudhary was a "separatist with a history of similar activities," though they conceded he had no prior criminal history.
The court noted that Section 152 BNS, a new provision without a direct counterpart in the IPC, must be applied cautiously to protect freedom of speech from being unnecessarily curtailed. It clarified that the provision applies only when someone promotes secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities through spoken or written words, signs, visible representations, or electronic communication. The court stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Chaudhary's actions directly threatened India's sovereignty or integrity.
The Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression, including spoken words and social media activity, unless it poses a genuine threat to the nation's sovereignty and integrity or encourages separatism. The court further observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence showing that the accused had made any statement against India's sovereignty or integrity.
The ruling highlights a nuanced interpretation of the law, distinguishing between expressing support for another country and actively engaging in activities that threaten India's sovereignty. It underscores the need for a cautious approach when applying laws that could potentially impinge on freedom of speech and expression, especially in the context of social media.
