The year that was—5 | Supreme Court votes for fearless listening
Amidst a crackdown on dissent, the Supreme Court reminded us that democracy isn’t about obedience; and the listening of a strong-minded individual takes precedence over a heckler’s veto.
Shreya Bansal
Published on: 31 December 2024, 05:41 am
ONE of the pillars of India's democratic system is the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It is the right through which citizens voice their grievances and much more. However, this right has often been perilously balanced against laws that aim to maintain public order.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Javed Ahmad Hajam versus State of Maharashtra serves as a poignant reminder of the thin line between protecting public order and stifling lawful dissent.
Brief facts of the case
This case arose from the dismissal of a petition by the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) against the appellant, Javed Ahmad Hajam, under Section 153A of the IPC.
The FIR was filed at Hatkanangale Police Station in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, based on two WhatsApp messages sent by the appellant in a group comprising students, parents and teachers of Sanjay Ghodavat College, where the appellant, a Kashmiri, worked as a professor, and one Whatsapp status update.
This case arose from the dismissal of a petition by the Bombay High Court seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) against the appellant, Javed Ahmad Hajam, under Section 153A of the IPC.
The messages read:
“August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir.”
“14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan.”
And the WhatsApp status update read:
“Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.”
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Javed Ahmad Hajam, ruling that his statements were not prejudicial to maintaining harmony among groups.
Justice A.S. Oka held that continuing the proceedings would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law.
The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between protected free speech and actions that abuse this freedom. It clarified that to constitute a crime under Section 153A of the IPC:
The accused must possess clear intent to promote enmity.
The standard for determining enmity should be based on a reasonable person.
On the first point, the court extensively discussed decisions such as Manzar Sayeed Khan versus State of Maharashtra, which laid down that any indictment under Section 153A of the IPC should be accompanied by the ingredient of “intention” or “mens rea”, without which the entire process can be construed to be an abuse of process of law.
