….The sedition law is periodically debated in the country. For the first time since independence, the sedition law was used to address provocative slogans that ultimately challenge the authority of the state. In this context, a recent decision by Justice Arun Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court is currently under discussion. Regarding the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek hi sazaa, sar tan se juda,” Justice Yadav stated that it was linked to the intention of inciting people to violent rebellion, which directly challenged India’s sovereignty, and therefore, it was appropriate to charge it with sedition.

The case stems from an incident in Bareilly on September 26th of this year. Maulana Tausif Raza, president of the All India Ittefaq Minnat Council, organized an event after Friday prayers at the city’s Islamia Inter College. The event was to protest alleged atrocities and false cases against Muslim youth. Police informed the organizers that such events were prohibited under Section 163 of the Indian Civil Service Code (BNSS), 2023.

This intervention by the administration led to agitated mobs, including stone-pelting, firing, and petrol bomb throwing. Several policemen were injured and public and private property was damaged. The agitated mob chanted, “There is only one punishment for insulting the Prophet, the head and body will be separated.” Council leader Nadeem Khan also incited people to march towards Islamia Inter College despite prohibitory orders. Around five hundred people gathered at his home and chanted slogans against the government, including controversial slogans demeaning the Prophet of Islam.

Inciting citizens to disrupt public order endangers the social fabric of the nation. The right to freedom of expression does not grant people license to challenge the law and commit violence and serious harm against others. According to the Allahabad High Court’s decision, those accused of such sloganeering clearly demonstrate no respect for Indian law and order. This is because insulting the deity of any religion, sect, or faith is punishable under Section 152 of the Indian Penal Code (BNS) and other sections.

While blasphemy against any religion or deity is a punishable offense under Sections 299 and 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code is very broad and covers almost all crimes related to religion. These include damaging or defiling a place of worship with the intention of insulting the religion of any class (Section 298), deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (Section 299), and deliberately uttering offensive words with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person (Section 302). These offenses against religion or religious symbols are punishable with imprisonment ranging from three to five years under various sections.

Regarding the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi…,” it calls for beheading anyone who insults the Prophet. Everyone knows what happened to Dipu Chandra Das in Bangladesh recently. This slogan challenges the sovereignty and integrity of India and the Indian legal system. The Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens, regardless of caste, religion, or creed, numerous freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, any attempt to incite people to commit a crime not even mentioned in criminal law is clearly illegal. Any such incitement or call is a punishable offense under Section 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The phrase “One punishment for the blasphemer of the Prophet…” has no basis in the Quran or Hadith. Its roots lie in Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. In 2011, Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, was convicted under the blasphemy law. When Salman Taseer, the then Governor of Pakistani Punjab, protested, it sparked an uproar. At that time, a mob led by Mullah Khadim Hussain Rizvi first raised this slogan, which later spread to other countries, including India. Condemning the misuse of this slogan to intimidate people of other religions, incite violent rebellion, and challenge state authority, the Allahabad High Court on December 17th refused to grant bail to the accused.

Any kind of arbitrariness in the name of freedom of expression cannot be acceptable. Remember that the prohibition of inflammatory, deceptive, and provocative speech is the foundation of civilization. Such restrictions are essential for the protection of citizens’ human rights, and the foundation of national sovereignty rests on them. The Indian Constituent Assembly initially rejected any restrictions on freedom of expression, considering it a fundamental element of the demand for Swaraj. However, members soon understood the vision of leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who advocated for reasonable controls on unrestricted freedom of speech. Ultimately, Jawaharlal Nehru reinstated sedition into the law through the First Amendment to the Constitution.