Bengaluru, Karnataka.
The slogan ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ would only lead to harmony and never discord, the Karnataka high court observed recently while quashing the proceedings against five persons from the coastal city of Mangaluru.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing a petition filed by Suresh Kumar, M Vinay Kumar, Subhas, Ranjan, and Dhananjaya.
On the night of June 9, 2024, the petitioners were returning after finishing celebrations over Narendra Modi being sworn in as Prime Minister again. When they reached Samadhan bar of Boliyar village, Ullal taluk, they (and several others) were allegedly attacked by 25 persons for raising the slogan of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. One Harish was allegedly stabbed in the stomach and one Nanda Kumar, in the back.
A complaint was filed at 11pm against 23 persons. After the registration of the crime, the following day, a complaint was registered, not by the accused but by one PK Abdulla, alleging that the petitioners had come near Mohiuddin Jumma Masjid in Boliyar and threatened him and others with dire consequences and asked them to leave the country.
On the said allegation, a crime for promoting enmity and other offences was registered against the petitioners, who challenged the same.
Senior advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioners, argued that they were attacked and stabbed for shouting ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’.
However, the additional state public prosecutor argued that the case of the petitioners clearly fit into Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., promoting enmity.
After perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that Section 153A makes it an offence if enmity is promoted between different groups of religion, and the present case is a classic illustration of misuse of the provision.
“It is a case of counterblast to a complaint registered by these petitioners. The defence is the petitioners were shouting ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ and praising the Prime Minister of the nation. The allegation by the complainant doesn’t even refer to any of those things. To protect the skin of the complainant and others, the skin of the petitioners is sought to be ripped off. It doesn’t meet even a single ingredient of Section 153A. A pure case of counterblast is sought to be projected as a crime under Section 153A,” the judge observed.
The judge further pointed out that the Supreme Court, in the Shiv Prasad Semwal vs State of Uttarakhand case, and the high court of Andhra Pradesh, in the Kollu Ankababu case, had quashed proceedings on the premise of lack of ingredients to attract 153A, with the latter even laying down some conditions for invoking the provision.
“In light of the above, permitting even investigation into the case at hand would be prima facie permitting investigation into the sloganeering of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ inter alia, which can by no stretch of imagination be promoting disharmony or enmity amongst religions,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
