Calling a Supreme Court Judgment “Denial of Justice” Is Protected Dissent, Not an Offence, Rules Karnataka High Court

Calling a Supreme Court Judgment “Denial of Justice” Is Protected Dissent, Not an Offence, Rules Karnataka High Court in Mahammed Hanif v. State of Karnataka

Case: Mahammed Hanif and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
Citation: 2026:KHC:58498
Date of Judgment: 15 October 2026
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Coram: Justice H. P. Sandesh
Proceedings: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR

Court Observation

“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.”

Summary

In November 2019, Mangalore South police registered an FIR against 13 men after posters appeared on walls beside a public road in Mangaluru describing a Supreme Court judgment delivered that month as a “denial of justice” and calling on people to “raise the voice for justice”. The complaint also referred to the Popular Front of India. The police invoked Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (outraging religious feelings) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act.

Justice H. P. Sandesh allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. The Court held that the slogans voiced dissatisfaction with a judgment — dissent protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution — and did not disclose the ingredients of any of the alleged offences.

Key Holdings

  • Posters calling a Supreme Court judgment a “denial of justice” and urging people to “raise the voice for justice” express dissent; they do not attract Sections 153A or 295A of the IPC.
  • For Section 153A, the test is the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers; the possibility of a few individuals developing hatred or ill will is insufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A.
  • While invoking Section 153A, there must be an ingredient of sedition against the State; slogans reflecting dissatisfaction with a judgment do not satisfy that ingredient.
  • The expression had to be assessed in light of the constitutional protection afforded to lawful dissent under Articles 19 and 21.
  • Continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjustified; the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash them.

Directions Issued

  • The FIR and the proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act were quashed.

Background

The proceedings originated from a suo motu police complaint registered in November 2019 by Mangalore South police after posters appeared in Mangaluru following a Supreme Court verdict delivered that month. The 13 men moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending that lawful dissent and criticism were protected under Article 19 of the Constitution and that the complaint disclosed no offence. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the posters, displayed in a public place immediately after the judgment, were capable of creating disharmony.

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.