Bengaluru | October 22, 2026
The Karnataka High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against 13 people accused in a case involving posters that described a Supreme Court judgment as a “denial of justice” and urged the public to speak up for justice. The court held that the slogans, as described in the complaint, did not satisfy the legal requirements for offences involving the promotion of communal enmity or the deliberate outrage of religious feelings.
In an order dated October 15, 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh allowed a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR, observing that criticism of a judicial verdict cannot, by itself, be treated as an attempt to create communal disharmony. The case also involved individuals linked to the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), according to the complaint.
The ruling underscores an important legal distinction: disagreement with a court judgment is not automatically a criminal offence. Whether speech attracts criminal liability must be assessed against the specific statutory requirements and the context in which the words were used.
How the case began
The proceedings stemmed from Crime No. 222/2019, registered at Mangaluru South Police Station in 2019. According to the complaint, posters had been placed on roadside walls carrying messages that characterised a Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice and called on people to raise their voices.
Police invoked Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951. These provisions concern, respectively, promoting enmity between groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, criminal conspiracy, and the defacement of public places.
The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of the process of law or secure the ends of justice. They argued that the allegations did not establish the essential elements of the offences cited by the police.
The State opposed the petition, maintaining that the posters had appeared in a public place following a Supreme Court judgment and could potentially disturb communal harmony.
Court finds the allegations insufficient to sustain the charges
Examining the allegations, Justice Sandesh assessed whether the slogans amounted to unlawful speech promoting hostility between communities or constituted criticism of a judicial decision. The court drew upon principles discussed by the Supreme Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The High Court stressed that the legal assessment of allegedly inflammatory speech cannot rest solely on the possibility that some individuals might react with hostility. The words must be examined in context and against the ingredients prescribed by the relevant criminal provisions.
Referring to the law governing Section 153A IPC, the court observed: “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.”
The court found that the slogans, as presented in the case, expressed dissatisfaction with a judicial verdict but did not establish the necessary elements of the alleged offences. It consequently held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was not warranted.
Constitutional freedoms and limits on criminal prosecution
The court also referred to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and expression, subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions, and the right to life and personal liberty. Its reasoning emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a statement challenges an institution or expresses dissatisfaction with a judicial outcome.
The judgment does not establish an unrestricted right to make any statement about a court ruling. Rather, it reinforces the requirement that allegations of communal enmity or deliberate religious insult must meet the legal standards prescribed by law before criminal prosecution can continue.
What the ruling means
The decision is significant for public debate on judicial accountability, political expression and the limits of criminal prosecution. It highlights the distinction between criticism of a judgment and speech that legally qualifies as incitement to hostility or an offence against religious sentiments.
The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings arising from the 2019 FIR. The order brought the case against all 13 petitioners to an end, including the allegations under the IPC and the Karnataka law governing the defacement of public places.
The ruling is confined to the allegations and circumstances before the court. It does not overturn the underlying Supreme Court judgment that the posters criticised; instead, it addresses whether the language described in the complaint justified the criminal charges brought against the petitioners.
Case details
Case: Yaseer Arafat and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
Petition number: Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021
Court: Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru
Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
Order date: October 15, 2026
FIR: Crime No. 222/2019, Mangaluru South Police Station
