High Court Clarifies Stance on Sedition and Sloganeering
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently addressed the contentious issue of sedition, ruling that expressing dissent through slogans against the government does not constitute sedition. Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur emphasized that while violent protests may qualify as rioting, they do not inherently demonstrate hatred or contempt towards the government.
Democracy and Dissent
In their ruling delivered on July 2, the Bench remarked, “In a democratic setup, expressing dissatisfaction, frustration, or outrage against government actions through slogans does not equate to sedition.” This statement was part of a judgment upholding the acquittal of three individuals accused of rioting and sedition following unrest in Haryana in August 2017. The unrest erupted after the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
Case Background
The allegations against the accused included raising pro-Dera Sacha Sauda slogans and anti-government chants. However, the High Court noted, “The evidence available merely points to dissent expressed through slogans, not hatred or contempt.”
Acquittal and Appeal
The accused had initially been acquitted by a trial court in 2019, a verdict later contested by the State in 2021. The High Court, upon review, found no grounds to overturn the trial court’s decision due to several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The judges cited “significant contradictions, material omissions, questionable recoveries, unreliable identification, inconsistent investigation, and lack of forensic corroboration.”
Judicial Conclusion
Consequently, the High Court concluded, “There is no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the trial court’s judgment that warrants interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.” Senior Deputy Advocate General Paras Talwar represented the State, while Senior Advocate Hemant Bassi, along with Advocates Gursimran Kaur and Saloni Chhabra, defended the respondents. Advocate Sanjiv Kumar Yadav also represented a respondent.
