Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

Introduction 

This case examines the boundaries of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the scope of Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) concerning promoting enmity between groups. The judgment emphasizes the constitutional right to dissent against government decisions and was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. 

 Facts 

• Javed Ahmad Hajam, a Professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College, Kolhapur, was charged under Section 153-A IPC. 
• Between August 13-15, 2022, he posted on his WhatsApp status:  
  • "August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir" 
  • "14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan" 
  • "Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy" 
• An FIR was registered at Hatkanangale Police Station, Kolhapur. 
• The Bombay High Court dismissed his petition to quash the FIR. 
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved 

• Whether the statements constitute an offence under Section 153-A IPC? 
• What is the scope of freedom of speech in expressing dissent against government decisions? 

Court’s Observations 

Legal Framework: 

• Section 153-A IPC requires mens rea (intention) to promote enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, etc. 
• The Court applied the "reasonable man" test - words must be judged by their impact on reasonable, strong-minded people, not those with weak minds. 
• Precedents cited: Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021). 

Analysis of Statements: 

On "Black Day" and Article 370: 

• The statements criticize the abrogation of Article 370 - a legitimate exercise of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). 
• They do not refer to any religion, race, or community. 
• Describing August 5 as "Black Day" is an expression of protest and anguish. 
• Every citizen has the right to criticize state actions. If every criticism is treated as an offence, democracy will not survive. 

On Pakistan Independence Day wishes: 

• Citizens have the right to extend goodwill to other countries on their independence days. 
• Such gestures cannot create disharmony between religious groups. 
• Motives cannot be attributed based solely on religious identity. 

Key Principles 

• Right to dissent in a lawful manner is integral to Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (dignified life). 
• The test is the general impact on reasonable people in significant numbers, not on a few individuals with weak minds. 
• Police must be educated on freedom of speech and democratic values. 
• Continuation of prosecution was a gross abuse of process of law. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the FIR. 
• All proceedings were terminated. 
• The Court reaffirmed that criticism of government actions, including Article 370's abrogation, is constitutionally protected speech and does not constitute promoting enmity under Section 153-A IPC.