Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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