‘Sar tan se juda’ slogan challenges sovereignty, integrity of India: Allahabad High Court denies bail to man booked for incitement

“Chanting the slogan ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’ which provides punishment of beheading for disrespecting the Nabi(Prophet) amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and also the Indian legal system, which is based on solemn constitutional objective, which is rooted in democratic principles,” the court observed.

The court noted that the slogan did not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious text belonging to Muslims, even then this slogan is being used widely by several muslim persons without knowing its correct meaning and effect. 

Case

The court was informed by the state that FIR, lodged on 26 May, revealed that Raza, who is the president of an organisation, namely, Ittefaq Minnat Council, and its member one Nadeem Khan, had incited the muslim community to assemble at Islamia Inter College to protest against the authorities.

“Despite the enforcement of Section 163 BNSS (power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) in Bareilly prohibiting assemblies, crowds gathered after namaz. Around 500 persons allegedly raised anti-government and provocative slogans ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’, attacked police personnel, damaged public and private property, and used stones, petrol bombs, and firing, causing injuries,” the state alleged before the court.

It was further claimed that seven persons were arrested initially, leading to an FIR against 25 named and 1,700 unknown accused persons based on statements, witnesses, and CCTV footage.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and was arrested at his home, but the police falsely claimed that he was arrested at the spot.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal history, and there is no incriminating material against him. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail during the investigation/trial.

Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi argued that the act of the petitioner and other co-accused is not only promoting enmity between the religious communities but also against the State as well as against the unity and integrity of India.

Key findings:

• The Constitution of India permits the right to assemble and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, but it has certain limitations as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
• Therefore, any slogan by a crowd that provides a death sentence contrary to the appropriate punishment –
• provided by the BNS or other criminal law is not only against the constitutional object but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the indian legal system and also punishable under Section 152 BNS.
• Slogans or proclamations are used in every religion, but these slogans are for the purpose of showing their respect to the concerned God or Guru, like in Muslim, “nara-e-takbir” followed by “Allahu Akbar” which means God is the greatest and there is no dispute or objection about it.
• Raising or chanting these slogans (Devotional calls or proclamations) by any person or a crowd is not an offence unless they are maliciously used to intimidate persons belonging to other religions.
• There are several instances that show even Prophet Mohammad had shown his kindness despite being disrespected by some people, and he never desired or expressed to behead such a person.
• In one incident, when Prophet Mohammad travelled to the city of Taif, a non-Muslim woman neighbour, who frequently harmed the prophet by throwing garbage in his path, but the prophet never retaliated or complained. When the neighbour fell ill, the prophet went to visit her out of kindness, which ultimately led the neighbour to embrace Islam.

Decision

The court held that there is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly, which not only raised objectionable slogans challenging the authority of the Indian legal system but also caused injuries to police personnel and damaged public as well as private property.

The court said there is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly which not only raised objectionable slogans challenging the authority of the Indian legal system but also caused injuries to police personnel and damaged public as well as private property, which is nothing but an offence against the State and he was arrested from the spot. Therefore, this court does not find any ground to release the applicant on bail.