An invitation to debate the constitutional legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification does not amount to promoting enmity under Section 196 of the BNS, the Sikkim High Court has held, quashing the FIR, charge-sheet and trial against three members of the Gorkha Seva Sena while calling their use of the State’s official logo “mischievous”.
Gangtok: A printed invitation calling people to a “Constitutional Consultation” on the legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim unification could not, by itself, draw the rigours of the offence of promoting enmity between groups, the Sikkim High Court has ruled. The Court quashed FIR No. 80 of 2025 registered at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, the charge-sheet filed on it, and Sessions Trial Case No. 10 of 2025 pending before the Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok [Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. v. State of Sikkim; Noel Sharma v. State of Sikkim].
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan allowed the two petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by an oral judgment delivered on November 6, 2026, filed by Bikram Rai alias Bikramadi Rai, Subash Mani Singh and Noel Sharma.
The invitation and the FIR
The Gorkha Seva Sena, based in Darjeeling, West Bengal, had invited people to a “50th Sikkim State Day Celebration and Constitutional Consultation” at the Town Hall, Naya Bazar, Kurseong, on June 15, 2025, on the theme “Constitutional Legality of Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification”. The invitation carried the official logo and theme of the Government of Sikkim commemorating 50 years of statehood, notified by Notification No. 75/Home/2024 dated September 24, 2024.
On June 6, 2025, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister lodged the FIR. The complaint alleged that the unauthorised use of the logo on “an extremely sensitive and potentially inflammatory topic” misled the public into believing the Government endorsed the organisation, and could “provoke enmity between communities (people of Sikkim and Darjeeling)”. The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 152, 196(1), 336(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). These were the prosecution’s allegations, and the petitioners disputed them.
State confines its case to Section 196
Senior Advocate N. Rai argued that the petitioners were protected by Article 19(1)(a) and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Yadev Sharma, conceded that the prosecution lacked material on Sections 152, 336(4) and 61(2), and pressed only Section 196 BNS. The sole question, the Court said, was whether the invitation drew the rigours of the provisions charged.
Debate must be met with debate
Applying the test laid down in Imran Pratapgadhi, the Court held that inviting public participation in a debate on a constitutional question could not attract the offence.
“Debates and deliberations during a public consultation seeking views of constitutional legality of what one group of people perceive may be the right course of action, as opposed to the contrary view of another group regarding the alleged proposed Darjeeling-Sikkim Unification, ought not to provoke such extreme sentiments as to attract the mischief of section 196 BNS.”
“Therefore, an invitation, by itself, for a public consultation for constitutional legality of Darjeeling and Sikkim Unification would not attract the provision of section 196 of BNS.”
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s caution that the effect of words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded and courageous people, not “those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position”.
Logo use “mischievous”, but not enmity
On the use of the State’s commemorative logo, Justice Pradhan was critical of the petitioners but held that it did not bring the case back within Section 196.
“Prima facie it seems to me quite clearly, mischievous. The petitioners ought not to have used the official logo without the expressed sanction of the Government of Sikkim. The illegal use of the official logo may invite the petitioners for other consequences.”
FIR quashed, with a caution
Exercising its power under Section 528 BNSS “for the ends of justice”, the Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings. It directed that the petitioners “shall not indulge in such mischievous activities detrimental to the interest of the society by misusing others property”, and left the State free to take appropriate action for any illegality in the use of the emblem. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying unification question or on any separate action over the logo.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s Section 196 framework to a contested regional and constitutional question, and makes clear that calling people to discuss it is protected expression, however strongly others may disagree. It also separates two issues the FIR had joined together: the unauthorised use of a government emblem may carry its own consequences, but it cannot convert an invitation to debate into the offence of promoting enmity between groups.
Case Title: Bikram Rai @ Bikramadi Rai & Anr. v. State of Sikkim [Crl. M.C. No. 01 of 2026], with Noel Sharma v. State of Sikkim [Crl. M.C. No. 07 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, High Court of Sikkim
Date of Judgment: November 6, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate N. Rai, with Tara Devi Chettri, Niyashi Rai and Sohitya Kala Limboo (Crl. M.C. 01/2026); Abhinav Kant Jha (Crl. M.C. 07/2026)
For the State: Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor