01 Read
What happened
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 153A and 295A IPC against individuals who painted wall slogans criticising a Supreme Court verdict. The court held that criticism of a judicial ruling, even if expressed bluntly on a public wall, does not amount to promoting enmity between groups or outraging religious feelings. The FIR lacked the essential ingredients of either offence, and registering it amounted to an abuse of the criminal justice process.
02 Understand
Why it matters
Sections 153A and 295A IPC are two of the most frequently misused provisions in hate-speech prosecutions, and this ruling sharpens the threshold required to invoke them.
Section 153A punishes acts that promote enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language, or acts prejudicial to national integration. The key element is that the act must be directed against an identifiable group and must have the tendency to disturb public tranquility between communities — not merely offend individuals.
Section 295A punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs. The Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957) upheld this section against a free-speech challenge but stressed the word 'deliberate and malicious' as a constitutional safeguard — the intent to outrage must be clear.
The Karnataka HC's ruling adds that criticism of a court judgment — even harsh, wall-painted criticism — does not satisfy either ingredient. There is no group targeted for enmity purposes, and no religious belief is being insulted. The court also invoked the abuse-of-process doctrine: where the complaint prima facie does not disclose the elements of the offence, continuing the FIR is itself a misuse of criminal procedure.
For CLAT PG, the operative principle is the threshold test: not every offensive or inflammatory statement crosses into S.153A or S.295A territory. The examiner will test whether the aspirant can identify the missing element that prevents prosecution.
Section 153A punishes acts that promote enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language, or acts prejudicial to national integration. The key element is that the act must be directed against an identifiable group and must have the tendency to disturb public tranquility between communities — not merely offend individuals.
Section 295A punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs. The Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957) upheld this section against a free-speech challenge but stressed the word 'deliberate and malicious' as a constitutional safeguard — the intent to outrage must be clear.
The Karnataka HC's ruling adds that criticism of a court judgment — even harsh, wall-painted criticism — does not satisfy either ingredient. There is no group targeted for enmity purposes, and no religious belief is being insulted. The court also invoked the abuse-of-process doctrine: where the complaint prima facie does not disclose the elements of the offence, continuing the FIR is itself a misuse of criminal procedure.
For CLAT PG, the operative principle is the threshold test: not every offensive or inflammatory statement crosses into S.153A or S.295A territory. The examiner will test whether the aspirant can identify the missing element that prevents prosecution.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial