Words on a wall that call a Supreme Court judgment a “denial of justice” are dissent, not an offence under Sections 153A or 295A of the IPC, the Karnataka High Court has held, quashing the FIR registered over slogans in Mangaluru.
Bengaluru: An FIR against 13 persons over slogans on roadside walls in Mangaluru has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court, which held that describing a Supreme Court judgment as a “denial of justice” does not make out an offence under Sections 153A, 295A or 120B of the Indian Penal Code [Yaseer Arafat and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice HP Sandesh allowed Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021 by an oral order of October 15, passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba appeared for the petitioners and High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M. for the State.
What the police complained of
Crime No. 222/2019 was registered at Mangalore South Police Station on November 16, 2019, on a suo motu complaint by the police. The complaint said that slogans on walls beside a road called a Supreme Court judgment a “denial of justice” and attributed them to the Popular Front of India. Apart from that phrase, the order neither identifies the judgment nor quotes the slogans. The FIR invoked Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC and the state law against disfigurement of open places.
These were allegations in a complaint and were never tested at a trial. The High Court decided none of them; it asked only whether the complaint, as it stood, disclosed an offence.
The rival arguments
The petitioners argued that the complaint discloses no offence under Section 153A or 295A and no conspiracy under Section 120B, relying on Article 19 of the Constitution and on Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156, among other authorities. The State Public Prosecutor answered that posters put up in a public place right after the judgment would create disharmony and attract Sections 153A and 295A.
Dissent, not enmity
Justice Sandesh remarked on how thin the complaint was:
a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice
On the test under Section 153A, the Court observed:
Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient
The statements, the Court held, voiced disagreement with a judgment without promoting disharmony, and fall within Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The quashing
Holding it a fit case for the exercise of inherent power, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 222/2019, together with the proceedings under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC and the state law on disfigurement of open places.
What the order says, and what it does not
Disagreeing with a court’s judgment is one thing and promoting enmity another, the order makes plain. Section 153A looks to the general effect of words on a significant number of reasonable people, not to the reaction of a few, and a complaint must disclose that effect before a criminal case can proceed.
The order turns on the wording of the complaint and decides nothing about the Supreme Court judgment the slogans referred to, or about any person’s guilt. The police contended that the slogans were meant to cause disharmony; the Court found that the complaint, as framed, did not bear that out.
Case Title: Yaseer Arafat and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021]
Bench: Justice HP Sandesh, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ismail Muneeb Musba for the petitioners; High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M. for respondents 1 and 2