corporate law
On March 7, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a pivotal judgment in the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra, affirming the fundamental right to free speech and the ability to express dissent. The verdict highlights that citizens can convey good wishes on the independence days of other countries without fear of penal consequences.
The Supreme Court, in its recent and insightful ruling (*Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No.886 of 2024, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)), unequivocally asserted that every citizen holds the fundamental right, under Article 19 of the Constitution, to offer good wishes to the citizens of other countries on their independence days. The Division Bench, including Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, stated, “If a citizen of India extends good wishes to the citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, which is their Independence Day, there is nothing wrong with it. It’s a gesture of goodwill." The Court also reflected on the historical context of India and Pakistan, noting their intertwined past before the partition in August 1947.
The judgment clarified that the right to dissent peacefully is integral to leading a dignified life under the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasized that every citizen is entitled to express criticism regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and the change in the status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court examined the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam, a Kashmiri Muslim professor in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, who faced charges under Section 153A of the IPC for posting a WhatsApp status that declared "August 5 - Black Day for Jammu & Kashmir" and celebrated Pakistan's Independence Day on August 14. The Apex Court determined that labeling August 5 as a "Black Day" constitutes legitimate protest.
The ruling began by addressing that an FIR was registered against Hajam for an offense under Section 153A of the IPC. He subsequently sought to quash this FIR through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.
The Bench elaborated on the specific allegations against Hajam. The State Government’s counter affidavit detailed his WhatsApp statuses, which included:
The alleged offense was tied to the messages that expressed dissatisfaction over the abrogation of Article 370.
The Court spotlighted that Section 153-A of the IPC is pertinent when actions promote enmity or create discord among different social groups. The Bench articulated that the words used by Hajam did not instigate enmity, hatred, or ill-will among religious, racial, or other groups.
The ruling underscores several key points:
The Bench emphasized that any potential emotional reactions by individuals should be evaluated through the lens of reasonable and rational citizens, not influenced by susceptible perspectives.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Javed Ahmad Hajam case reinforces the essence of democracy, advocating for the right to dissent without fear of persecution. By quashing the charges against Hajam, the Court emphasizes the importance of free speech, especially in critiquing government actions. This decision reflects the robust application of constitutional principles and the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual liberties within a democratic framework.