The Karnataka High Court has ruled that criticising a Supreme Court judgment by calling it a “denial of justice” does not, by itself, amount to a criminal offence. The court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against 13 people accused of painting slogans on a public wall questioning an apex court verdict, underlining the importance of the right to dissent in a democracy.
Wall slogans questioning Supreme Court verdict led to FIR
The case originated in 2019 when slogans criticising a Supreme Court judgment were allegedly painted on roadside walls in Mangaluru. According to the police complaint, the slogans described the verdict as a “denial of justice” and called for raising a “voice for justice”.
The police alleged that the slogans were associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI) and could create disharmony. Following a suo motu complaint by an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Maangaluru South Police Station, an FIR was registered against 13 people.
Why the accused challenged the criminal case
The accused approached the High Court, arguing that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the offences invoked against them. The FIR included charges under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with criminal conspiracy under Section 120B and provisions of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951.
Their counsel argued that expressing disagreement with a judicial verdict cannot automatically be treated as promoting enmity or outraging religious feelings. The petitioners also relied on constitutional protections for freedom of speech and expression.
Court says criticism alone does not establish an offence
Justice H.P. Sandesh observed that the words cited in the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC. The court noted that Section 153A requires more than mere disagreement or criticism. Assessing whether speech promotes enmity involves considering its general impact on a significant number of reasonable people.
How the right to dissent shaped the verdict
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that lawful dissent is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The court concluded that the slogans expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment and called for justice, without meeting the legal threshold for the alleged offences. It therefore exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.
Sudeep Singh Rawat is a Copy Editor at NewsX Digital with over five years of experience in digital journalism. He covers national and international news, with a focus on politics, crime, technology, public affairs, and trending topics. Before joining NewsX Digital, he worked with Business Standard, The Sunday Guardian, and other digital media organisations. His reporting focuses on breaking news, enterprise stories, and explainers that inform readers through accurate, balanced, and context-driven journalism.
The post Can Calling a Supreme Court Verdict ‘Denial of Justice’ Land You in Jail? Karnataka High Court Gives Its Ruling appeared first on NewsX.