In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that advocating for peace and criticizing hostilities between India and Pakistan on social media platforms does not amount to the offence of sedition. The court made this observation while granting bail to an individual accused under sedition charges for his online posts.
Court's Rationale in Granting Bail
A bench led by Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order on May 28, 2025, providing relief to the accused, Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj. Bhardwaj was booked by the Dehra police station in Kangra district under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The primary allegation stemmed from a Facebook post where he, in conversation with a Pakistani national, stated that "Operation Sindoor was wrong".
After examining the social media content, the court noted that the material, prima facie, only showed conversations where the petitioner and another person were critical of the hostilities between the two nations. "They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose," the court observed. It emphatically underlined, "It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition."
Addressing Specific Allegations
The bench also addressed other allegations made by the prosecution. On the claim that the accused possessed images of prohibited arms forming a person's name on social media, Justice Kainthla pointed out that no actual illegal weapon was recovered from the petitioner. The court held that merely posting such images does not constitute sedition.
Regarding the allegation that the petitioner raised the slogan "khalistan zindabad", the court stated that forensic analysis of the extracted mobile phone data could not trace any such slogan. Furthermore, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab, reiterating that the mere raising of slogans, without any accompanying incitement to violence or overt act, does not amount to an offence.
Court's Emphasis on Incitement and Liberty
The judgment highlighted a crucial distinction between expression and incitement. The court found no evidence at this stage to suggest that the petitioner's Facebook posts incited disaffection or violence among the public. Consequently, the mere posting of such content could not, prima facie, be construed as a criminal offence.
Noting that the police had already filed a chargesheet in the trial court, the bench asserted that continued detention would serve no useful purpose. It reinforced the legal principle that bail provisions should not be used as a tool for pre-trial punishment. The court, therefore, granted regular bail to Abhishek Singh Bhardwaj, directing him to comply with all bail conditions.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in protecting freedom of speech, especially concerning expressions that call for peace and criticize conflict, while carefully balancing national security concerns under sedition laws.
