JAVED AHMAD HAJAM vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. The State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 187 (7 March 2024)
Factual Background
The Appellant was employed as a Professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, having previously resided in District Baramulla, Kashmir. The allegations of committing a criminal offense arose from two specific messages posted on his WhatsApp status between August 13 and August 15, 2022. These posts included declaring “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir” and stating, “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy,” in apparent criticism of the decision to abrogate Article 370. He also posted “14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan”. Based on these statuses, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes promoting enmity between different groups. The Appellant filed a petition in the Bombay High Court to dismiss the FIR, but the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, concluding that parts of the post could still attract the offense under Section 153-A. The Appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant for his WhatsApp status, which criticized the abrogation of Article 370 and extended good wishes to Pakistan on its Independence Day, should be terminated because the content fails to fulfill the necessary ingredients of the offense under Section 153-A of the IPC.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the FIR registered against the Appellant under Section 153-A of the IPC. The Court affirmed that the right to dissent against government actions in a legitimate manner is secured by the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Reason for the decision
- Lack of Intent for Section 153-A: The Court determined that the core element required for an offense under Section 153-A of the IPC is the intention (mens rea) to cause disorder or incite people to violence and promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The words used by the Appellant did not demonstrate any intention to create disharmony between groups based on religion, race, or caste.
- Protection of Dissent: The Appellant’s statement describing August 5th as a “Black Day” and expressing unhappiness over the abrogation of Article 370 was deemed a legitimate protest and a criticism of a State action. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which inherently includes the right to criticize any decision of the State. The Court warned that if every criticism of State action is treated as an offense under Section 153-A, democracy cannot survive, making the right to dissent an integral part of guaranteed rights.
- Application of Reasonable Man Standard: In assessing the impact of the words, the standard to be applied must be that of reasonable women and men, not individuals of “weak and vacillating minds” who perceive danger in every opposing viewpoint. The content posted would not promote enmity or hatred among reasonable people who are significant in number.
- Goodwill to Foreign Citizens: Regarding the wish for “Happy Independence Day Pakistan,” the Court held that every citizen has the right to extend good wishes to the citizens of other countries on their respective independence days, viewing it as a gesture of goodwill. The Court stressed that harmful motives cannot be attributed to the Appellant simply based on his religious identity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the continuation of the prosecution against the Appellant constituted a gross abuse of the process of law because his expressions of protest against the government’s action and his message of goodwill toward citizens of another country were protected by the right to freedom of speech and did not meet the stringent legal criteria for promoting enmity under Section 153-A of the IPC. The judgment also highlighted the need to educate police machinery regarding the concept and scope of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
