Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

HIGH COURT QUASHES SEDITION FIR AGAINST SCHOOL: SCHOOL HAVE USED THE MINOR CHILDREN FOR PLAY CRITICIZING CAA, NRC  AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE AGAINST PM MODI.

04 September 2024 10:16 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, has quashed the sedition FIR registered against four school officials for enacting a play that criticized government measures and made derogatory remarks against the Prime Minister. The court held that the play did not incite violence or create public disorder, emphasizing that citizens have the right to criticize government actions within reasonable limits.

The bench, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, highlighted the importance of free speech and constructive criticism of government policies. Quoting from the judgement, the court stated, "A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to resort to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder."

The allegations against the petitioners, who were identified as Allauddin, Abdul Khaleq, Mohd. Bilal Inamdar, and Mohd. Mehatab, revolved around their involvement in the enactment of a play within the premises of Shaheen School in Bidar. The play allegedly portrayed potential consequences for Muslims if certain government enactments were implemented, while also featuring abusive language directed at the Prime Minister.

The court emphasized that the play was not intended to incite violence or promote enmity between different religious groups. It further underscored the responsibility of educational institutions to focus on imparting knowledge and nurturing young minds, rather than indulging in political criticism or insulting constitutional functionaries.

Quoting the judgement, the court stated, "The school is supposed to impart education and encourage learning among young minds... They should be fed with knowledge, technology, etc., which benefits them in their upcoming curriculum of academic period. Therefore the schools have to channelize the river of knowledge towards children for their welfare and betterment of society and not indulge in teaching the children to criticize the policies of the government."

The court ruled that the registration of the FIR for offenses under Sections 504, 505(2), 124A, 153A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was without substance, and the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the legal process. The judgement referred to previous cases, including Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Vinod Dua v. Union of India, to establish the parameters of free speech and the offense of sedition.

Date of Decision:14th June 2023

ALLAUDDIN,S vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Latest Legal News