The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that free speech cannot justify terms like ‘casteist goons’, as such language unfairly criminalises entire communities. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj rejected activist-lawyer Rajat Kalsan’s plea to quash the criminal case pending.
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that freedom of speech does not permit the use of expressions like ‘casteist goons‘ as such remarks attribute criminal tendencies, moral corruption, and collective blame to an entire community instead of criticising specific individuals.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by activist-lawyer Rajat Kalsan seeking the quashing of a criminal case registered against him for statements made in connection with a murder case.
Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Lawyer for Frivolous Petition: “Will Pass an Order You’ll Never Forget”
The Court said that,
“When such expressions are publicly articulated and normalised, particularly in charged or emotive settings, they carry the real and imminent risk of legitimising prejudice, inciting hostility and disturbing public tranquillity. Freedom of speech cannot be stretched to shield expressions that promote or are likely to promote alienation, public disorder or violence or that challenge the unity and integrity of the nation. Unchecked divisive speech ultimately curtail the liberties of law-abiding citizens,”
Court also noted that such language could trigger social tension.
Kalsan was booked in July for allegedly promoting enmity between communities, provoking breach of peace, and making statements likely to cause public mischief. The FIR stemmed from a speech delivered at a public gathering in Hisar, where he reportedly referred to certain villagers as ‘casteist goons‘ while alleging that they attempted to falsely implicate a Scheduled Caste woman in a murder case.
Also Read: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
It was alleged that Kalsan claimed a woman had been killed by her family over a property dispute in 2024, and that villagers influenced the police to frame the SC woman to force her to withdraw a prior complaint filed under the SC/ST Act. The earlier complaint related to allegations that her son had been assaulted by members of another caste over accusations of stealing a chicken.
While examining the quashing plea, the Court noted that the fact Kalsan began his speech by acknowledging he might be accused of attacking a caste showed his awareness of the nature of his remarks.
The Court remarked that he unnecessarily repeated ‘caste’ and ‘casteist gundas’ adding that neutral language would have sufficed.
The Court stated that,
‘The persistent and deliberate reference to ‘caste’ and ‘casteist goons’ in the speech cannot, therefore, be brushed aside as inadvertent or incidental. It rather shows that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to be using such expression so as to incite people, which had the potential to create a public disorder and posing imminent danger to public tranquility.’
The Court emphasised that the audience setting was important, noting the speech was delivered before a crowd gathered over an alleged caste atrocity, not in an academic or reasoned debate space.
It stated that
“On the contrary, the speech was addressed to a public crowd that had assembled in connection with and probably in response to a call for support against caste atrocity. In such a setting, emotive and caste-laden expressions possess a far greater potential to inflame passions, polarise the audience and disturb public tranquility.”
Further, the Court held that Kalsan exceeded his role as an advocate by engaging in public mobilisation and sharing such content online.
The court remarked that
“As an Advocate, his job is to defend his client in a Court of Law and not on a public platform by arranging public protests… The same reflects the passionate attachment of the petitioner to the incident thus, making him an interested participant seeking to influence perceptions relating not only to the prosecution but also to the eventual outcome of the case.”
Finding no convincing justification for his use of the term ‘casteist gundas’ the Court refused to interfere with the FIR and dismissed his plea.
Advocates Arjun Sheoran and Tejasvi Sheokand represented the petitioner.
Case Title: Rajat Kalsan v State of Haryana
Read Attachment: