Man Accused Of Raising 'Pakistan Zindabad' Slogan Moves P&H High Court Against Session Court's Order Framing Sedition Charges

A man has moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an order of the Sessions Court framing charges against him under Section 124A IPC (Sedition) over the allegations that he used 'filthy language' against India and raised Pakistan Zindabad slogan.

After the video of the alleged incident went viral, the police registered the FIR under Sections 153A,124A, 504 IPC and arrested accused Irshad, a labourer by profession, for creating "animosity among several groups". 

As per the prosecution's case, his confessional statement was recorded in which he had stated that he involved himself in a discussion with a man regarding the Indian-Pakistan match wherein he allegedly said that cricketer KL Rahul had not played well, and because of which, his favourite team Pakistan had won the match.

Proceeding Before Sessions Court

In October 2023, after the presentation of challan before the Sessions Court, Nuh (Haryana) passed an order stating "from the perusal of police report under Section 173 CrPC and accompanying documents, the prima facie case for commission of an offence punishable under section 153-A and 504 are not made out against the accused. However, section 124-A of IPC, 1860 is made out against the accused."

Consequently, Sessions Judge decided to frame the charge for committing "sedition" under Section 124-A IPC. Thereafter in December, summons were issued to the prosecution witness for March 2024.

Proceeding Before the High Court

The revision petition challenging the Sessions Court order to frame the sedition charge was listed today, before Justice N.S. Shekhawat, without issuing notice on the plea, the Court deferred the matter to January 10, 2024.

Supreme Court's Order To Keep Sedition In "Abeyance"

It is pertinent to note that in May 2022, the Supreme Court had ordered that the 152-year-old sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision. In an interim order, the Court had also urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli said, "We hope and expect Centre and State Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124 A IPC when it is under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of law till further re-examination is over."

The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail. It has also been ruled that if any fresh case is registered appropriate parties are at liberty to approach courts for appropriate relief and courts are requested to examine the relief sought taking into account the order passed by the court.

In September, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that a reference to a larger bench was needed as the provision was upheld by a 5-judge bench in the 1962 judgment Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. Being a smaller bench, it may not be appropriate for it to doubt or overrule Kedar Nath, said the bench led by Chief Justice of India.

Pakistan's High Court Striking Down Sedition 

In March, the Pakistan's Lahore High Court invalidated Section 124A of the Pakistan Penal Code [Sedition law] calling it inconsistent with the Country's Constitution.

Justice Shahid Karim underscored that Loyalty to the state has to be distinguished from loyalty to the Federal Government whose offices are being occupied by a political party.

In categorical terms, the High Court observed that since Pakistan's Parliament had been slow in realizing the urgency of repealing the law of sedition, and so, it is for the courts to step up and protect the constitutional rights of the citizens. In this regard, the Court also took note of the May 2022 decision of the Supreme Court of India putting in abeyance India's sedition law.

Counsels for the petitioner: Advocates Rajeev Godara and Talim Hussain

Case Title: Irshad @ Saddam v. State of Haryana