Waging War Against The State Includes Inciting People On Social Media Rules Punjab And Haryana High Court

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that inciting people on social media against Government of India amounts to waging war against the state. It increased the reach of the court in cyberspace with its latest verdict.

Facts of the Case

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was listening to a bail application filed by petitioner seeking regular bail for committing offence of waging war against the state or attempting to wage a war against the state as mentioned in section 121/121A of the Indian Penal Code and offence of abetting, advocating inciting commission of any unlawful activity as given under section 10 and 13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Petitioner was arrested on 25th May 2016. Respondents placed on record 3000 pages documents to substantiate the fact the petitioner had used social media platforms to incite hatred towards Government of India with a view to establishing an independent State of Khalistan for Sikhs. Petitioner also distributed pamphlets encouraging Sikh youth to join organization for formation of Khalistan on the eve of Hola-Mohalla Festival in the month of March and further also reproduced similar provocative and incendiary messages from the Leaders of designated Terrorist Groups based in Pakistan on Social Media/ Facebook Account which is accessible to innumerable people both in India and worldwide. Two grievances were raised by the petitioner which are as follows:

  1. Charges framed against the petitioner are not established from the prosecution material collected during the investigation
  2. Petitioner has undergone detention in excess of two years till date, on account of which his further detention for an indefinite period is not justified.

The Decision of the Case and Arguments advanced

Justice Sudip Ahluwalia refused to grant bail to the petitioner and dismissed the application. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. R.S Bains argued that sharing alleged seditious/communally sensitive or hateful posts on social media does not cover the ingredients to establish the offence under section 121. The state countered this argument by saying that even collecting men, and not necessarily arms and ammunition, would amount to attempting to wage a war against the government. The learned single Judge agreed with the argument of state and observed that …. “here the incitement is on social media directly accessible all over the World simultaneously, and not just in a limited crowded place, such as the one in which slogan were shouted… It can therefore, be safely held that the petitioner by way of collecting men, with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India, would be liable under section 122 of the IPC, which is punishable at par with section 121-A of IPC itself, for which he is facing trial. Punishment in such case can extend to life imprisonment.”

Moreover, the Hon’ble judge after examining the record put forward by state concluded material posted by the petitioner undoubtedly reveal overt incitement to violence for the purpose of establishing the State of Khalistan. High Court directed the trial court to finish the trial as quickly as possible.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -