Can you face criminal charges for criticising SC judgment? Karnataka HC answers

NEW DELHI: Can people face criminal charges for putting up posters criticising a Supreme Court judgment and calling it a denial of justice? The Karnataka high court has held that slogans expressing disagreement with a court judgment do not amount to promoting enmity between groups or hurting religious feelings unless the necessary legal conditions are met.

In an October 15, 2026, order, the court quashed an FIR against 13 men accused of putting up such posters in Mangaluru.Why did the men approach the high court?According to the court order, the case began after posters were found on walls beside a road in Mangaluru. The posters described a Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice and called on people to raise their voice for justice. The police complaint also referred to the Popular Front of India.Police registered a case against 13 men under Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.The men approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR. Their lawyer argued that the complaint did not show how the slogans amounted to a criminal offence.

He said the right to express disagreement with a judgment was protected by Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.The lawyer relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v State of Maharashtra, which discussed freedom of speech and the right to disagree with decisions taken by public authorities. He also cited other Supreme Court and Karnataka high court rulings to argue that the slogans did not amount to the offences alleged by the police.The state opposed the plea, arguing that the men had put up the posters in a public place soon after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and that the slogans could create disharmony in the country.Can people face criminal charges for criticising a court judgment?Justice H P Sandesh examined the police complaint to decide whether the slogans amounted to the alleged offences. The court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows a high court to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.The court noted that the slogans described the Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice and called for people to raise their voice for justice. Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Javed Ahmad Hajam and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh, it examined whether the words could amount to promoting enmity between groups or deliberately hurting religious feelings.“Having considered the same, it appears that a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice.

When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the judgment,” the court noted.The court also considered whether the slogans could encourage hatred or ill will between religious groups. It said the words had to be assessed by looking at their general impact on a significant number of reasonable people, rather than the reaction of a few individuals.“Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religion groups and so also, discussed in detail with regard to the test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC,” it added.The high court held that the slogans expressed disagreement with the Supreme Court judgment and did not amount to the offences alleged in the FIR. The court said the case was fit for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.“Having considered the discussion made in detail by the Apex Court and the principles laid down, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony and only it is stated that justice is denied and raise voice and the same is within the scope of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Sandesh said.The high court then allowed the petition filed by the 13 men and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.