Last Updated:
Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that praising Pakistan without denouncing India is not sedition.
The bench said there was no allegation that the post created hatred or disaffection against the Indian government.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that praising a foreign country, without denouncing India, does not amount to sedition, as it does not incite separatist feelings or subversive activity. Justice Rakesh Kainthla made the observation while granting bail to a man accused of posting an AI-generated image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the words “Pakistan Zindabad” (long live Pakistan).
The bench said there was no allegation that the post created hatred or disaffection against the Indian government. The court noted, “Hailing a country without denouncing the motherland does not constitute an offence of sedition because it does not incite armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities. Therefore, prima facie, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.”
Recommended Stories
What Was The Case?
The accused, Suleman, was booked in May by police in Paonta Sahib, Sirmour district, under Section 152 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts endangering the unity and integrity of India. The provision is rooted in the repealed Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which covered sedition. He surrendered before the police on July 8. Investigators said the post was inflammatory, particularly given strained relations between India and Pakistan.
Suleman’s counsel told the court he had been falsely implicated and that the filing of the chargesheet meant custody served no further purpose. State counsel, however, argued that raising a slogan in support of Pakistan amounted to anti-national behaviour. The court noted that police had already seized the electronic device used in the post and sent it for forensic examination.
“The police have filed the chargesheet, and there is nothing to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody,” the order noted.
- Location :
Shimla, India, India
Loading comments…
Read More
