Don’t insult constitutional functionaries like PM: Karnataka HC in order quashing sedition proceedings against Bidar school

The court also said that utterances insulting the PM including those saying that he should be “hit with footwear” were derogatory and irresponsible, as while constructive criticism was acceptable, they should not be insulted for policy decisions.

The school management had petitioned the court to quash an FIR registered by local activist Neelesh Rakshyal in 2020. The petition alleged that a school play which was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) was posted on social media to create religious enmity and that it was an anti-national act. The FIR had been registered under IPC sections pertaining to sedition and provocation.

The counsel for the accused petitioners argued that criticism of policies and functionaries would not amount to the offence of sedition as there was no evidence of incitement to violence or an intention to create public disorder. The counsel argued that there were also no specific allegations which would amount to the promotion of enmity between different groups, and hence the registration of the FIR was without substance. On the other hand, the government counsel countered that the FIR did disclose offences and that it needed interference as the allegations had to be investigated.

Referring to previous Supreme Court precedents, the bench noted, “….To constitute the offence punishable under Section 124-A of IPC, there must be an attempt to bring hatred or contempt, or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India by inciting people to resort to violence and creating public disorder….It is alleged that they (the accused) enacted a play/drama through the minor children of the school criticizing the various enactments of the government and if such enactments are enforced, the Muslims may have to leave the country.”

“Further, the children were made to utter words abusing the Hon’ble Prime Minister of the country. The play/drama was enacted within the school premises. There are no words uttered by the children inciting people to resort to violence or to create public disorder,” it added.

As the bench quashed the FIR, the following closing observations were also made, “The school is supposed to impart education and encourage learning among young minds… Dramatization of the topics which are appealing and creative in developing a child’s interest in academics is preferable, and hovering over current political issues imprints or corrupts young minds. They should be fed with knowledge, technology, etc, which benefits them in their upcoming curriculum of academic period.”

“Therefore the schools have to channelize the river of knowledge towards children for their welfare and betterment of society and not indulge in teaching the children to criticize the policies of the government, and also insult the constitutional functionaries for having taken particular policy decisions which are not within the framework of imparting education,” it added.

Observing that the play had not been known to the public at large and was only seen when one of the accused uploaded it on his Facebook account, the bench said that “at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioners herein enacted the play with an intention to incite people to resort to violence against the government or with an intention of creating public disorder. Hence, in my considered view, the registration of the FIR for the offence under Section 124-A (sedition) and Section 505(2) (promoting enmity between classes) in the absence of essential ingredients is impermissible.”