Citation- {2024} 3 S.C.R. 317 :2024 INSC 187
https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MzY2ODE&utm
Facts—
In the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, the appellant, Professor Javed Ahmad Hajam, was an employee of Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Hailing from Baramulla, Kashmir, he was a member of a WhatsApp group which included students and their parents. Between 13 and 15 August 2022, Professor Hajam posted two messages as WhatsApp status:
1. “August 5 – Jammu and Kashmir Black Day”, accompanied by an image of barbed wire.
2. “August 14 – Happy Independence Day Pakistan”, accompanied by an image of the moon.
These posts led to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against him at Hatkanangale police station in Kolhapur under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises incitement to enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
Prof Hajam filed a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and said that the pleas in the appeal were not prejudicial to maintaining harmony among the groups. The court observed that every individual has the right to express dissent and such expressions, in this context, do not fall under the provisions of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32533784
Issues raised –
The case of Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra raises several key legal issues.
First, it questions whether the appellant’s WhatsApp posts, which included references to significant dates in Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan, violate Section 153A of the IPC by inciting enmity based on religion, race, or language.
Second, it examines if filing an FIR under this section infringes on the appellant’s right to freedom of speech and expression as protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Third, it considers whether the appellant’s actions showed a willful intent to create hatred or enmity, which is crucial for applying Section 153A.
Lastly, it discusses whether the appellant’s dissenting statements regarding the repeal of Article 370 and criticism of government policies fall within acceptable limits of democratic expression. These issues highlight the challenge of balancing public order with the protection of fundamental rights in a democratic context.
Contentions –
In this case, the appellant contended that his WhatsApp posts were expressions of dissent regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and were political statements, not attempts to incite hatred. He argued that these posts were protected by the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and claimed there was no malicious intent to promote enmity, suggesting that the FIR was a misuse of Section 153A to suppress political dissent.
On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra argued that the posts could incite communal disharmony by glorifying Pakistan and labeling August 5 as a “Black Day,” potentially provoking different community sentiments. The State also claimed that such statements could disrupt public order, justifying the use of Section 153A. Furthermore, the State highlighted the responsibility of the appellant, as a public figure and professor, to exercise restraint in his statements to prevent influencing students and the public negatively. This debate balanced the protection of fundamental rights against the need to maintain public order, shaping the context for the Supreme Court’s decision.
Rationale –
The Supreme Court dismissed the FIR against Javed Ahmad Hajam, citing several key points. Firstly, it emphasized that his posts reflected dissent and criticism permissible under the right to freedom of speech and expression, essential for democracy. The Court found no malicious intent in his statements, which did not aim to incite hatred among groups. It considered the context of his remarks as political expressions rather than efforts to promote communal discord.
By applying a reasonable person test, the Court determined that a reasonable individual would view the posts as expressions of political dissent. It stressed the need to prevent the arbitrary use of legal provisions to suppress dissent and underscored the importance of free speech in a democracy, noting that criticism of the government is vital for accountability and public discourse.
Defects of law –
The case exposed certain issues and shortcomings in the legal framework and its implementation, particularly concerning the application of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Firstly, the language of Section 153A is ambiguous, allowing for potential misuse, especially in cases of dissent or criticism of government policies, due to undefined terms like “promoting enmity.”
Secondly, law enforcement tends to arbitrarily apply this section without adequate assessment of whether statements genuinely incite hatred.
Additionally, establishing “deliberate and malicious intent” is often unclear, with police overlooking intent in political expressions.
The case also shows how Section 153A can suppress dissent, as critical voices might be misinterpreted as promoting enmity, thus stifling free speech.
Furthermore, there is a need for better training for law enforcement to comprehend free speech protections and the limitations of Section 153A, which can lead to inappropriate case registrations. Lastly, the absence of clear guidelines for social media expressions complicates the evaluation of intent and impact in statements made online.
Inference –
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra emphasizes key points regarding Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code and fundamental rights.
Firstly, it reaffirms the significance of dissent and freedom of expression as foundational to democracy, ensuring that criticism of government policies is a protected right. Secondly, it clarifies that Section 153A requires malicious intent to incite hatred; mere political dissent does not meet this threshold, preventing misuse of the law against free speech.
The judgment also balances public order with constitutional rights, recognizing the need to regulate true incitements to violence while protecting dissent. It calls for judicial oversight on laws limiting speech to prevent harassment and rights violations. Moreover, it highlights the necessity for law enforcement training to differentiate between hate speech and legitimate expression, especially relevant in the age of social media. Finally, the decision protects against a chilling effect on free speech, assuring that political criticism will not lead to automatic prosecution.
Analysis–
The Supreme Court’s decision is significant for several reasons. It clarifies that Section 153A IPC, which penalizes actions promoting enmity among groups, does not cover mere dissent or criticism that lacks intent to incite hatred. The judgment highlights the necessity of protecting freedom of speech, especially in a democracy, allowing for criticism of government actions as long as it does not lead to violence or disorder.
Additionally, the Court emphasizes the need to educate police and law enforcement on constitutional rights to prevent misuse of Section 153A against legitimate dissent. The decision aligns with previous judgments that have emphasized the need for a deliberate and malicious intent to incite enmity for an act to be punishable under Section 153A. For instance, in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the intent to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offense under Section 153A.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case serves as a landmark judgment in reinforcing the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. It provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 153A of the IPC, ensuring that this provision is not misused to curb legitimate dissent. The judgment also highlights the need for sensitizing law enforcement agencies to democratic values and constitutional rights, thereby strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation.
Reference website –
- https://clsnluo.com/2024/06/03/javed-ahmad-v-state-of-maharashtra-the-intriguing-nexus-between-art-21-and-the-right-to-dissent/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/punishment-under-section-153a-ipc/
- https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/javed-ahmad-hajam-v-state-of-maharashtra-anr-2024-insc-187-section-153-indian-penal-code-quash-fir-1524408
Name- Awani payasi
B.A.L.L.B. Second year student
Govt. New law college Indore
Madhya Pradesh
Plagiarism report
