What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

The Court quashed the FIR under IPC 153A and set aside the High Court order, holding that the posts were protected dissent and did not promote enmity.

Why did IPC 153A not apply here?

Because the posts did not target any religion, race, language, or community, and there was no intention to promote enmity; the impact must be judged on reasonable people.

What principles of free speech were highlighted?

Citizens can lawfully criticise government actions. Democracy needs space for dissent. Words are assessed by their effect on reasonable minds, not on a few who feel offended.

Which precedents guided the Court?

Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) on mens rea and the reasonable person test.

Does wishing another country on its independence day amount to disloyalty?

No. Extending goodwill to another nation does not, by itself, create group disharmony or breach IPC 153A.

Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

Supreme Court of India 2024 Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. Free Speech • IPC 153A Citation: Not provided ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 24-Oct-2025

Quick Summary

This case draws a clear line between lawful dissent and criminal promotion of enmity. A college professor posted WhatsApp status messages criticising the abrogation of Article 370, calling 5 August a “Black Day”, and wishing Pakistan on 14 August. An FIR under IPC Section 153A followed. The Supreme Court held that these posts, read by a reasonable person, did not target any group or incite hatred. The FIR was quashed and the High Court order was set aside.

CASE_TITLE: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Free Speech, IPC 153A, Dissent SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 19(1)(a), Reasonable Person Test, Mens Rea PUBLISH_DATE: 24-Oct-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: javed-ahmad-hajam-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024

```

Issues

Do the WhatsApp posts amount to an offence under Section 153A IPC?
How far does Article 19(1)(a) protect criticism of government action?

Rules

IPC 153A needs mens rea to promote enmity between groups based on religion, race, language, etc.
Reasonable person test: judge the words by their effect on reasonable, strong-minded people, not on hypersensitive listeners.
Precedents: Manzar Sayeed Khan (2007); Patricia Mukhim (2021).

Facts (Timeline)

Aug 13–15, 2022: The professor posts WhatsApp statuses: “5 Aug – Black Day (J&K)”, “14 Aug – Happy Independence Day Pakistan”, and “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy”.

After posts: FIR registered at Hatkanangale Police Station, Kolhapur, under IPC 153A.

High Court: Petition to quash the FIR is dismissed.

Supreme Court: Appeal is filed against the High Court order.

Arguments

Appellant

Posts criticise policy; they do not target any community.
No intention to promote enmity; no reference to religion, race, or language groups.
Protected by Article 19(1)(a); dissent is part of democracy.

Respondent

Posts allegedly hurt sentiments and could disturb harmony.
Calling 5 August a “Black Day” and greeting Pakistan were portrayed as problematic.

Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the High Court’s decision. The posts were within the bounds of free speech. Wishing another country on its independence day is not, by itself, unlawful. Describing a day as “Black Day” is a protest statement, not an attack on any group. Continuing the prosecution would be a gross abuse of process.

Ratio

No group-targeting, no 153A: Without reference to religion, race, language, etc., and without intention to promote enmity, 153A is not attracted.
Reasonable audience: Assess impact on reasonable, not hypersensitive, minds.
Dissent is protected: Legitimate criticism of State action lies at the heart of Article 19(1)(a).

Why It Matters

This ruling safeguards space for peaceful protest online. It reminds police and courts to apply the mens rea requirement and the reasonable person test before invoking speech offences. Democracy needs room for sharp, even uncomfortable, criticism.

Key Takeaways

Criticising government decisions is generally protected speech.
IPC 153A requires intention and group-based targeting.
Offence cannot be made out by hurt feelings of a few.
Courts will check prosecutions that chill lawful dissent.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “D-R-A” — Dissent allowed • Reasonable person test • Absence of group targeting.

Spot dissent: Is it policy criticism, not hate?
Apply the audience test: How would a reasonable person read it?
Check targeting + intent: Any group mentioned? Any intent to divide?

IRAC Outline

Issue: Do the posts constitute an offence under IPC 153A, or are they protected by Article 19(1)(a)?

Rule: IPC 153A needs intention to promote enmity between groups; evaluate impact on reasonable people.

Application: Posts show protest and goodwill; they do not target a protected group; no intention to create enmity; reasonable readers would not see hatred.

Conclusion: FIR quashed; prosecution would be an abuse of process.

Glossary

Mens rea: A guilty mind; intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
Reasonable person test: Standard of how an average, sensible person would view the words.
Dissent: Peaceful disagreement with government decisions.