The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has delivered a significant judgment stating that sloganeering against the country constitutes unlawful activity and can be treated as seditious. The ruling came as the court overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss charges against two men accused of anti-India sloganeering. Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, forming the division bench, heard an appeal by the J&K government against a 2021 verdict that had acquitted Ameer Hamza Shah and Rayees Ahmad Mir of making "anti-national speeches". These speeches allegedly aimed to instigate the public against India's sovereignty and advocate for J&K's separation.
The case originated from an FIR registered by J&K Police on March 20, 2015, against Ameer and Rayees, residents of Kehnusa in Bandipora, North Kashmir, under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They were accused of delivering anti-national speeches after Friday prayers, inciting the public to challenge India's sovereignty and advocating for the secession of Jammu & Kashmir. While a chargesheet was filed five years later, a sessions court dismissed it on September 29, 2021, stating that merely raising anti-national slogans, without any proof of a law-and-order problem, did not warrant their involvement in unlawful activity.
However, the High Court disagreed with the sessions court's assessment, asserting that it suffered from "non-application of mind and erroneous application of law". The division bench emphasized that the essence of the UAPA lies not only in curbing violent acts but also in tackling the ideological propagation of secessionist and anti-national sentiments. The court clarified that freedom of speech does not extend to advocating secession and that sloganeering with secessionist intent can be criminally prosecuted.
The High Court also addressed the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, where it was held that merely raising slogans like "Khalistan Zindabad" did not amount to sedition without inciting public disorder. The High Court found the facts in the present case to be "clearly distinguishable," stating that the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment was "uncalled for".
This ruling has far-reaching implications for national security laws in India, clarifying that advocating secession through speech or slogans alone constitutes "unlawful activity" under the UAPA, even without violence or disturbance. The court emphasized that even if the accused did not commit physical violence, their words and incitement constituted an unlawful activity. The verdict underscores the judiciary's firm commitment to preserving the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The High Court directed the trial court to proceed with framing charges against the accused under Section 13 of the UAPA and dispose of the case in accordance with the law. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural thresholds, especially in cases involving national security and public order.
