The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that sloganeering against the government is an expression of dissent and cannot by itself amount to sedition. It upheld the acquittal of four accused in a 2017 violence case linked to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction
Published Date – 15 July 2026, 05:49 PM
Chandigarh: Sloganeering against the government or any wing of governance in an elected democracy would not be sufficient grounds to slap sedition charges against citizens, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.
A slogan against the government is only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred, contempt or disaffection, it observed while upholding the acquittal of four Kaithal residents in connection with an incident in 2017 following Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction in a rape case.
A violent protest may amount to rioting, but such acts of violence would not be perceived as an act of bringing hatred or contempt against the government, the high court observed.
The FIR was registered on August 25, 2017, under sections including 124-A (sedition), 188 (disobedience of a lawful order) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, at Kalayat police station in Kaithal.
A mob had allegedly vandalised an electricity office in Haryana’s Kaithal during the violence that erupted after Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction by a court in Panchkula.
A bench of Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur dismissed the Haryana authorities’ appeal challenging a trial court verdict dated September 23, 2019, acquitting the accused of offences under various IPC sections, including 124-A (sedition).
“Still further, even the ingredients of Section 124-A IPC are not satisfied. A violent protest may amount to rioting but such acts of violence would not be perceived as an act of bringing hatred or contempt against the government,” the high court observed in its order dated July 2.
Sloganeering against the government or wings of governance in an elected democracy would not be sufficient to slap charges of sedition against citizens, the bench observed.
“A frustration or dissatisfaction or even outrage is not disaffection or hatred. Court is hence required to ensure that when the charge becomes grave and the punishment harsh, the ingredients and their existence are strict.
“The evidence on record is merely suggestive of slogans against the government, which are only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred, contempt or disaffection,” the HC bench observed.
The bench was told that the FIR was registered after a Sub-Divisional Officer of power utility UHBVN at Kalayat complained that about 14-15 persons, armed with lathis, ‘gandasas’ and bottles containing petrol, proceeded towards the office in August 2017 while raising slogans.
Apprehending danger to their lives, the officer concerned and other officials left the premises.
The court also observed that no test identification parade was ever conducted, despite the claim that none of the witnesses had any prior acquaintance with the accused persons.
The accused were identified for the first time during their appearance in court.
In criminal jurisprudence, where the identity of an accused constitutes the foundation of the prosecution case and the witnesses are strangers to the accused, the holding of a test identification parade assumes considerable importance, the HC bench observed.
The high court said it is evident that the trial court did not acquit the respondents merely on account of minor discrepancies, but that the acquittal was based on substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries and lack of reliable identification.
It also cited “inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration and failure of the prosecution to establish the statutory ingredients of several offences alleged against the respondents”.
The HC said that the burden lay squarely on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt, but it failed to move from a broad suspicion that the accused “may have been” involved to the legal requirement that an accused “must be involved” in the offences.
Suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof, the High Court bench further observed.
“Accordingly, we find no illegality, perversity, impropriety, misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
“The present appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is affirmed,” the HC said.
