The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that merely wishing for peace and ending hostility between India and Pakistan does not amount to sedition. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed this while granting bail to Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj in the present case.
Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that expressing a desire to end hostilities between India and Pakistan does not constitute the offense of sedition.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla made this statement while granting bail to Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj, who was accused of posting photographs and videos of prohibited weapons and the Pakistani flag on Facebook.
However, the Court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) did not include any claims that Bhardwaj’s actions incited hatred or discontent toward the Government of India.
The Court stated,
“The pen drive containing the images and the video was also perused by me. Prima facie, they show that the petitioner chatted with someone, and both of them criticized the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose. It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition,”
Background of the Case:
Police, during routine patrol duty, received secret information that Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj had uploaded photographs and videos on Facebook showing prohibited weapons and the Pakistani flag, and was allegedly following “anti-national” personalities.
They also claimed he supported “Khalistan” and criticized Operation Sindoor, an Indian military campaign. His phone was seized, chats were extracted.
Although no illegal items were discovered, the investigation into his Facebook account revealed posts and messages indicating his alleged support for Khalistan. He was subsequently booked under Section 152 of the BNS, which replaces the previous sedition laws under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Kainthla relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025), Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962),Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) and Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021) to underline that:
- Sedition laws apply only when speech incites violence or public disorder.
- Section 124A ( Now Sec 152 of BNS) applies to such activities which are intended or tend to create disorder or disturbance of the public peace.
In the bail order issued on January 1, the Court determined that merely posting content depicting prohibited arms does not amount to sedition. Regarding the allegation that Bhardwaj had shouted the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad,” the Court found no evidence of such slogans in the extracted data from his mobile phone.
Nonetheless, the Court commented that simply posting the slogan does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offense.
The Court explained,
“In the present case, the slogans were posted, as per the prosecution, on Facebook. There is no evidence, whatsoever, at this stage to show that any person was excited towards disaffection by posting these slogans. Thus, the mere posting of the slogans will not prima facie amount to any offence,”
Taking into account that a chargesheet has already been submitted in the case, the Court ordered the release of the accused.
It further stated that,
“The provisions of bail cannot be used to punish a person before the proof of his guilt. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail,”
Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Suri represented Bhardwaj, while Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen appeared on behalf of the State.
Case Title: Abhishek v State of Himachal Pradesh
Read Attachment: