In a significant legal development, the #AllahabadHighCourt has ruled that expressing support for Pakistan on social media—without any explicit reference to India or any provocative incident—does not, at first glance, amount to an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to acts endangering the #Sovereignty and #UnityOfIndia.
This observation came during a bail hearing of a man named Riyaz, accused of sharing an Instagram post allegedly in support of Pakistan. The court, while allowing his bail plea, clarified that such an act, although controversial, does not inherently fulfill the legal threshold required for prosecution under #Section152BNS.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, who presided over the matter, examined the case in detail and found that the accused had not referred to India, nor had he cited any incident that could be construed as derogatory or disrespectful toward the country.
“Merely showing support to Pakistan without referencing any specific incident or mentioning the name of India will not prima facie attract the offence under Section 152 of BNS,” the court observed.
During the proceedings, Riyaz’s legal counsel argued that the Instagram post in question did not contain any symbols, flags, photographs, or written material that could be seen as insulting India or violating its dignity and sovereignty. No elements were presented that showed disrespect to national emblems or encouraged anti-national behavior.
The defense emphasized that under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the #RightToFreedomOfSpeech, individuals have the liberty to express their opinions—however unpopular they may be—so long as these do not incite violence or threaten national integrity.
“Even if the country being supported is a known adversary of India, expressing that support alone does not satisfy the legal criteria for action under Section 152 BNS,” the counsel stressed.
In contrast, the State Government’s legal representative strongly opposed the bail, arguing that such social media posts have the potential to spread separatist ideologies and embolden anti-national sentiments. According to the prosecution, the act was harmful to national harmony and security, warranting the application of Section 152.
However, the court took a nuanced view, pointing out that Section 152 BNS is a new provision, which replaces no corresponding section from the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC). Therefore, it must be interpreted with caution and judicious application.
“Before invoking Section 152, reasonable standards should be applied,” Justice Deshwal emphasized, “especially since social media posts fall within the realm of free speech and should not be narrowly construed unless there is a clear and present danger to national security.”
The court clarified the necessary elements required to invoke Section 152 BNS, which includes an intent to incite armed rebellion, secession, subversive activities, or any speech or communication that encourages separatism and threatens the unity and integrity of India.
The judge further noted that while such a post may provoke public anger or cause discord, it may—at most—fall under Section 196 BNS, which deals with promoting enmity between groups on the basis of religion, language, place of birth, etc. and is punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment. However, it still does not meet the more stringent criteria of Section 152, which carries more severe consequences.
“Simply expressing admiration or support for a foreign nation—even one perceived as hostile—without promoting rebellion, separatism, or insult toward India, cannot automatically be criminalized under Section 152,” the court ruled in its detailed judgment dated July 10.
This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the #RightToExpression while also maintaining a careful balance between liberty and #NationalSecurity concerns. The case sets an important precedent in distinguishing between free expression and sedition or subversive activities, especially in an era where #SocialMediaSpeech is increasingly being scrutinized.
