The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that saying ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ or praising another country is not sedition unless India is denounced, reinforcing free speech under BNS.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRINAGAR: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that mere praise of another country, without criticizing or denouncing India, does not amount to sedition or an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Rakesh Kainthla made this observation while granting bail to Suleman, a fruit vendor accused of sharing an AI-generated image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the words “Pakistan Zindabad.” The case was registered under Section 152 BNS, a provision that replaced the colonial-era Section 124A IPC (sedition).
Background of the Case
Suleman, a resident of Paonta Sahib, was arrested in June 2025 after his social media account displayed a post deemed inflammatory. He argued that:
- He was falsely implicated due to a monetary dispute with the complainant.
- His Facebook account was created and operated by his son, and the complainant had access to his phone.
- He had no role in posting the controversial reel.
The State opposed bail, arguing that given the strained relationship between India and Pakistan, the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad” was anti-national.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Kainthla relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), and Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) to underline that:
- Sedition laws apply only when speech incites violence or public disorder.
- Expressing admiration for a foreign country without undermining India’s sovereignty is not punishable.
- The FIR did not allege that the accused had incited hatred, separatism, or rebellion against India.
The Court categorically stated:
“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.”
Bail Granted with Conditions
Since the police had already:
- Seized the electronic device,
- Filed the chargesheet, and
- Found no need for custodial interrogation,
The Court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with conditions such as not intimidating witnesses, surrendering his passport, and sharing his mobile/social media details with the police.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Anubhav Chopra
State of Himachal Pradesh: Additional Advocate General Lokinder Kutlheria with Deputy Advocates General Prashant Sen, Ajit Sharma, and Sunena Chanhari
Case Title:
Suleman v State of Himachal Pradesh
Cr.M.P.(M) No.1647 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on New Sedition Law
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
